Shareswatch Australia

Australian stock market investing, ASX charts, analysis & market forecasts.

Shareswatch Australia header image 2

Climate change fakes and fakers: the mindless mob.

January 15th, 2010 · Greg Atkinson · 29 Comments

Over the past year or so those who have questioned the science behind Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming have been subjected to ridicule and harassment especially by dim witted journalists and politicians.  But the real villains in the global warming story are those who preach climate change, but do little to rescue their own carbon footprint. Why are these people not held up to ridicule I wonder?

The recent COP15 conference in Copenhagen is an excellent example of how ridiculously stupid the whole climate change issue has become. Around 40,000 people were in the city for a conference that without a doubt resulted in tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air, especially as a consequence of the delegates and media personnel who flew to Denmark for the conference. (most of whom did not need to be there)

The outcome from days of meetings, receptions, dinners and drinks was that the gathered world leaders basically “noted” that climate change is a threat to humankind. Couldn’t they have achieved just as little via a few video conferences?

Australia led the pack at Copenhagen in regards to being the biggest climate change fakes. Our delegation of around 140 was one of the biggest and achieved basically nothing. Even our bright idea of hiding carbon emissions under a rock was dismissed as people have sort of woken up that clean coal isn’t really that clean.

But climate change fanatics don’t seem to worry about the lunacy of having an unnecessary conference about climate change where they actually undertake the sort of activities that they say is causing the problem in the first place. Perhaps next they can have a three day feasting event to talk about world hunger where all the food comes from poor nations?

There are climate change fakers everywhere and they are in no way morally superior to those who question the science behind AGW. Those who are labelled “deniers” simply see another side of the debate and want questions answered.

Most climate change fakes don’t really understand the science behind AGW, often pretend they do but worst of all, somehow expect CO2 emissions to be reduce via a tax because they are not prepared to make significant lifestyle changes themselves.

So next time you hear someone ranting on about how the oceans or temperatures are going to rise because of human activity use this check-list to see if they are a climate change faker.

Australian climate change fakers check-list.

You can tell a person is a climate change faker if they believe (or say) the science behind AGW is “undeniable” but….

1. They fly overseas or domestically for holiday.

If a person really believes that human activity is causing the planet to warm then why the heck are they jetting off on holidays leaving a trail of carbon as they travel. How can a person justify in their own mind getting worked up about the “deniers” and then fail to see the irony when the planes engines start.

If they stay at home they will help reduce the demand for air travel and this will help reduce global CO2 emissions. Simple to do, but don’t expect the number of people going to Bali to drop off any time soon.

2. They fly in business or first class.

If a follower of Al Gore’s climate change theory has to fly for business or personal reasons then they should try and limit their CO2 footprint by heading back into cattle class. Sure it is a bit rough rubbing shoulders with the general public, but it is a small sacrifice to make in order to help reduce CO2 emissions.

Eventually airlines will take the hint and pull out the business and first class seats, thus allowing them to squeeze more people onto the plane. Maybe they can even find a way to take out all the seats and make us stand…instead of earth hour we can stand up for the planet for 10! (well not me actually, because I am one of those nasty people who questions the science behind AGW)

However you will find plenty of climate change fakers up at the front of the aircraft because although they reckon we need to save the planet, it is not so important it seems as to justify them missing out on a glass of wine, leg space and a gourmet meal.

3. They drive a sports car.

Sports car’s are not designed to get the maximum amount of energy out of each litre of fuel.  If a person pours scorn on climate change “deniers” and then merrily drives a sports car then they are the ultimate climate change faker. Enough said.

Those who own 4WD vehicles in the city that rarely see a dirt road are also probably climate change fakers as well.

4. They drink bottled water.

Need I go into how ridiculous it is for someone who reckons they are worried about how human activity is changing the climate to drink bottled water? If they drink imported bottled water then they really mustn’t do much thinking at all.

I wonder if they had bottled water at the COP15 circus?

5. They have a large screen TV, home entertainment system or other unnecessary consumer electrical appliances.

Since most of Australia’s electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels then a climate change believer should be leading by example and using the minimum amount of electricity at home. Simply turning off appliances when not in use is not enough, the power hungry appliances have to go.

The fact is that if we reduced our household electrical consumption by 30% we would go a long way towards meeting any carbon emission reduction targets, but the reality is that most people are hooked on TV’s, air conditioners, home coffee makers, computers and gaming consoles etc.

A person who endorses the Emissions Trading Scheme but has a home full of consumer electrical goods is a major league climate change faker.

Oh and I know people try to justify having a large flat screen TV because it uses less electricity than an older type TV but here is a hint, a small flat screen TV consumes even less and having no TV will really help reduce home electricity consumption.

6. They live in a home larger than their needs and/or have a holiday home.

Housing activity creates vast amounts of CO2. Just think about all the carbon that is released when homes are constructed or renovated. Then factor in all that nasty human activity required to fill the home with furniture and fittings, not to mention the impact housing has on the environment via land clearing.

There is no need to implement a tax to reduce CO2 emissions in Australia, we could simply bring in legislation that bans the private ownership of holiday homes and regulates the size of private residences.

Since Kevin Rudd says climate change is the biggest moral issue we face then he could introduce legislation to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions created within the housing sector this year. He has the power to save the planet in his hands! (well at least he thinks he has)

But this will never happen of course because Kev07 knows Australian’s would never stand for such an infringement of their rights. Climate change might be the biggest threat we face according to the global warming fanatics, but if they have to live in a house without a double garage and family room then the burden is too great!


I know the above list is a little extreme, but my point is that 90% of the people I see supporting an ETS would scream from the rooftops if they had to make any serious personal sacrifices in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

In their own minds they care passionately about the earth’s future, but not enough to do something significant about it. (apart from switching off the lights for “Earth Hour” and feeling all warm and fuzzy about it)

Climate change fakers are the villains in the global warming story, not the heroes. They are all for reducing Australia’s carbon footprint as long as it doesn’t affect them too much.

I don’t have a problem with people who believe in AGW if they practice what they preach so to speak. But I would guess the number of people in Australia who fall into that category would be very small indeed.

Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong might not like the global warming “deniers”, but at least these people are asking the right questions and not leading some sort of carbon double life. Being a climate change faker and part of the mindless mob is nothing to boast about.

29 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Lawrie // Jan 15, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Well said. But until this type of story makes it into the SMH or the Age most of your fakers will be unaware of their fakery. They figure if they convince a govt to preserve a forest or lock up some farming land that they have done their bit. They inevitably want someone else to pay. I accept CC but not the human induced form so I am proud to be a “denier”. I also support finding a relacement for Arab oil and am convinced that clean coal is an unobtainable pipe dream. What i see from Krudd and co is hypocracy. It’s going to be drier and there will be more droughts so where are the new dams? We have to stop burning coal so where are the nukes? We have a water problem so lets have another 15 million people. Yep. He’s one smart cookie. NOT.

  • 2 Senator13 // Jan 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Lawrie – that is a great summary and proves that if Rudd was truly serious about supporting Australia’s future – he would be coming up with better water management and water security solutions and be serious about nuclear power plants.

    Greg, this is a great article that goes to show the great hypocrisy of these so called “eco worriers”. There are a lot of people out there that claim to be “green” simply because they participate in “Earth Hour”. They don’t mind that they drive a V8 4WD but live in the middle of a city and never take it off road – leaving it idling while waiting for the kids to get out of school. They don’t mind that they are watching their plasma in the air conditioned comfort of their oversized homes because – they “switched off” for an hour last year.

  • 3 Greg Atkinson // Jan 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Lawrie, Senator isn’t it amazing that the media generally does not question Rudd or Wong over their own “green” credentials. It really seems to be a case of do as I say, not do as I do.

    I am still trying to understand how anyone thought “clean coal” was a solution to anything. If that is the sort of thinking we can expect from Rudd & Co then we are in serious trouble.

  • 4 Greg Atkinson // Jan 18, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Here is another “hole” in the global warming story. I wonder if all those people who were screaming about melting glaciers will pull their heads in? See:

  • 5 Greg Atkinson // Jan 25, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Well a few days ago we found out the melting glaciers climate change “fact” was false and now the link between global warming and natural disasters has been exposed as nothing more than another manipulation of the facts and data by the UN/IPCC.

    Back in November Kevin Rudd said “We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that can occur”

    Now read this article from The Australian: United Nations caught out again on climate claims

    Will Kevin apologise to the ‘deniers” and admit he was wrong? Will Penny Wong admit she does know a bunsen burner from an afterburner?

    How can anyway now say that the science behind AGW is undeniable!

  • 6 Ralph // Feb 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Nice work, Greg. I suspect the number of fakers would run into the millions.

    After a couple of years of ETS mayhem, it looks like it’s a dead duck, even as it is about to be re-introduced into parliament. There was a window for the government to introduce an ETS and/or some other form of climate change policy leading into Copenhagen. Now that Copenhagen has ended in a whimper, that window has been rammed shut and will probably not be opened again for several more years, if ever.

    Meanwhile, my pet issue of resource sustainability continues to be a major issue.

  • 7 Greg Atkinson // Feb 2, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Hi Ralph, as you can tell the “fakers” annoy me. I don’t own a car, I try not to waste resources and think we need to live in a sustainable way, but I don’t see how the planet will be “saved” by a carbon trading scheme and another tax. Let’s tackle pollution, food shortages, waste etc head-on if we are serious and stop mucking around with gestures like “earth hour”. (and conferences!)

    If Rudd really thought climate change was the biggest issue we are facing then why didn’t he spend all the stimulus money on addressing climate change issues? Are school halls more important than the planet in the crazy world of Kev07?

  • 8 Ralph // Feb 3, 2010 at 8:41 am

    That’s true, Greg. Rudd’s actions demonstrate exactly where climate change sits in his list of priorities (i.e. near the bottom).

  • 9 Greg Atkinson // Feb 17, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Ralph I wonder if Rudd stands by his comment that the science behind AGW is “undeniable” now that much of the so called science in the IPCC report has been exposed as flawed.

    Here is another example of some of the very “deniable” science behind the AGW “theory” –

    I guess this won’t get much coverage on the ABC!

    What’s next I wonder?

  • 10 Senator13 // Mar 27, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Talk about the mindless mob – Earth Hour tonight…

  • 11 Greg Atkinson // Feb 15, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Kevin Rudd, the man who said climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time is a certified climate change faker of the higher order, if there was any doubt his purchase of a holiday home confirms this: Rudd invests in a family escape

    Hypocrisy unlimited!

  • 12 GoWest // Feb 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    ONLY 150m from the beach! The minister for CCfraud (Combet) also bought a house near the beach in Newcastle in Nov 07 during the height of Gore-worship. Seems these fake Climate changers keep trying to push the coastal house prices down before everyone else realises its a scam. Hint — buy a property near the beach!
    Having stopped the greenALP bringing in the ETS, I just hope that the carbon tax goes the same way, but we know how much the greens love their taxes so they can create more fire traps.
    It is ironic that Carbontax is based on a gas – the mainstay of life for everything green. Sort of makes you wonder how the greens get away with taxing trees! LOL:)

    PS: the CCgang have another new name for us – “Climate Cranks”

  • 13 Lawrie // Feb 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    I am proud to be called whatever their new name is for those who oppose man made GW/CC. I could n’t care less because it shows they are becoming desparate. Their science doesn’t work so all they have left is name calling. It means we are beginning to win.

  • 14 Greg Atkinson // May 31, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Goodness me, we now have Cate Blanchett lecturing people on climate change and economics.

    Here is some wisdom from Cate “I loved the 2020 Summit” Blanchett as reported in the SMH yesterday:

    Blanchett said Australia would be economically vulnerable if it remained a high carbon economy while its trading partners moved towards priced carbon. ”Australia is a remarkable country with incredible technical and physical resources and a capacity to be a world leader in renewables.”

    Read more:

    So now we have actors who think they are not only well versed in climate science but actually are economists as well.

    I hearby nominate Cate Blanchett for the inaugural Shareswatch Australia Climate Change Faker of the Year!

  • 15 Senator13 // May 31, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Hahaha classic!

  • 16 Ned S // Jun 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Labor govs are extremely destabilising.

    Anyway, here’s the latest:

    Bottom line is who’s gunna get what.

    Cate? Yeah, maybe we should ask Arnie his opinion of climate change – Various things have been hotting up and getting icy cold a lot in his bit of the world lately. 🙂

  • 17 Angel // Nov 1, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I read the line where you said that flat screen tv’s use less than normal tv’s.The greenies really can’t use that excuse any longer because it’s simply not true.I rang my power company last bill and asked them why my bill was so high seeing I got rid of one of my fridges and didn’t use any central heating or air con,the first thing they said to me is that flat panel tv’s consume far MORE energy than normal tv’s,go figure,the lady was at a loss for words when I told her I have NO flat screen tv in the house,I had reduced my usage and got rid of a fridge!!! but I still paid $70 more this bill.She proceeded to tell me their had been 2 power rises from government one was about 10% the other 16% and that in the last 3 yrs power had risen about 30% all up and that’s before this toxic tax comes in.Next year I’ll freeze in winter because I won’t be able to even use a little heater and boil in summer with No air con but I’ll pay much more for power than I ever have before.This Government has to go and the Liberal government has to come clean on the REAL science behind the AGW globalist Agenda!!! WE are litterally allowing them to setup a scientific dictatorship that will Micromanage every part of our lives.If you have not looked into these new SMART METERS being placed on our homes without consent,I suggest you go to youtube or elsewhere and have a look at how dangerous they are to human health and how unsecure they are with your personal info.Wake Up Australia.

  • 18 Biker // Nov 1, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Our electricity bills went down after purchasing a larger flatscreen, Angel. Seems to vary with plasma, LCD and LEDs:

    There’s also a claim that when people bought new flatscreens, many also bought peripherals: video game consoles, digital video recorders, streaming/on-demand video devices and surround-sound entertainment systems. We have a one-button cut-out, which turns all these devices off simultaneously… .

  • 19 Ned S // Nov 2, 2011 at 3:17 am

    A mate of my dad’s had a welder that when he used it, made his electricity meter go backwards. So whenever his meter reading was getting up a bit, he just used to do some welding. I can see market potential for such ‘faulty’ devices! 😀

  • 20 Biker // Nov 2, 2011 at 7:09 am

    Watch out, Ned… the Greens will make this compulsory!~ 😉

  • 21 Angel // Nov 2, 2011 at 10:19 am

    @Biker I don’t know much about them as I don’t own plasma or LCD tv’s but all I know is that the power company usage “expert” wanted to know if I was using these tv’s,if I had said yes she would have pinned my higher bill on the tv,you see where I’m coming from? She was fishing for something to blame the extra consumption on.Now these new tv’s may or may not be more efficient than what you’re currently using.I may have a reasonably new normal 32inch tv with a five star rating whereas I may purchase a Plasma 50 inch with 2 star rating that is going to use more power.Also in the near future all these so called SMART products are going to be communicating wirelessly with your new so called SMART meter and recording your every move e.g. how you woke up at 3 am and switched on your toilet light how you then proceeded to the fridge and activated the fridge light,then you went on a holiday for a week when nothing was used apart from normal running all this personal spying done in your home will then be wirelessly transmitted to passing electricity company vehicles where they will intercept the transmission and asses your next bill however they have much more info than you think because soon every product you put in your fridge will be scanned by your fridge and recorded then that info will be sold to the highest advertising bidder so that they can pop up an add on your pc about coke for eg just as your running low on cans of coke how convenient.Meanwhile people you don’t know have info on when you regularly leave for work or vacation,crooks and hackers will develop systems to read your wireless signal and personally I do not want a control grid of so called SMART products spying on me in the name of “saving” the environment.This is all part of the socialist agenda coming down around our heads.These Smart meters send out ridiculous amounts of RF radiation equivalent to holding 100 mobile phones to your head every couple of minutes,as if we have’nt got enough to worry about with all the other cancer causing things in our modern society.IT”S ALL A CON WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

  • 22 Biker // Nov 2, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Interesting comments, Angel.

    Friends who realised Synergy had fitted a Smart Power meter to their Solar Electricity System discovered their electricity bill was actually much higher than before they fitted panels!

    Our advice was to have A1 meters fitted to our seven SES systems. All our tenants are pretty happy, carrying forward credits. My missus actually got a $202 cheque last week…
    Mine dew, many of our rentals have SHWS, as well as SES…
    and reflective tinted windows facing morning and afternoon sun.

    Lack of residential construction recently has meant that we’ve been able to pick up solar HWS and solar heat pumps very cheaply, due to suppliers having too much stock. We’ve saved around a thousand bucks per unit, as well as the $990 rebate.

    Is it all a con?

    Advantages to us are as follows:

    a.) VERY happy tenants;

    b.) Longer tenancies;

    c.) Tax claim benefits;

    d.) Value added to our rentals.

    There’s no question that smart meters are sus. Most people haven’t realised they need to totally change their lifestyles to benefit. The installer who put in a solar heat pump on our guest chalet this week gave us an auto-timer which turns the unit on only between 11:00 am and 4:00 pm… and is simply unplugged when we have no family or friends visiting… .

  • 23 Greg Atkinson // Nov 3, 2011 at 7:02 am

    Angel you raise some interesting issues about Smart Meters but the reality is that “smart’ networks already exists, the mobile phone network being a good example.

    I don’t think we should be fearful of the technology behind Smart Power Grids but I do think we should me wary of the privacy concerns you have raised.

    Having said that Google and others already collect quite a bit of data about us, as do credit card companies, online shopping sites, mobile phone companies & everybody’s pal – the tax office for example.

    Personally if I were running the show in Australian I would have directed investment towards improving the power grid & infrastructure instead of rolling out the NBN.

  • 24 Angel // Nov 3, 2011 at 8:53 am

    @Greg Atkinson,good point about the NBN.I know smart networks already exist and no where did I mention fear of technology as you know we can’t avoid it although my family and I do not own mobile phones.It’s not tech that worries me it’s how intrusive it becomes and something you never mentioned in your reply was the obvious rf frequency dangers to living beings.You only have to go and watch the videos of people monitoring the blasts of rf coming of these meters to see how dangerous and high these levels are.So there is a reason to be concerned about this particular so called advancement in technology which mostly benefits the power companies and some big businesses.On another issue the NBN ,pink bats and all the other wasteful spending is one thing but for a government to now want to hassle people on disabillity to claim back a measly 300 mill after getting us over 200 billion in debt is simply outrageous!

  • 25 Angel // Nov 3, 2011 at 8:55 am

    @Greg sorry that was a measly 30 million

  • 26 Angel // Nov 3, 2011 at 9:14 am

    @biker I’m glad you see some benefits in this system and it’s great that you are happy and your customers but I don’t want to be forced to change my whole lifestyle.I am a private citizen and do not run a business so there is no advantage to me.I already have a solar hot water system and was happy to get one which did save us some dollars.My concern was not the technology but it’s being implemented without our say.I want to be able to decide which tech i want for my family and which one I don’t want such as a mobile phone,none of us have one and we are very happy that way.We use a landline and pay phones when needed and if their is ever an emergency on the road such as a breakdown and no pay phone we do what people have done for many years before mobile phones and simply ask someone to make a call from their landline and we pay them or we thumb it or walk.No big deal but we have that choice to take the convenience of a mobile or not whereas smart meters are thrust upon us with no say,although I do believe there is a legal opt out that no one is discussing.Many people are ultra sensitive to RF radiation and have to live some distance from phone towers or they just feel sick constantly which is something that needs to be addressed instead of this Chinese style one size fits all policy.Thanks for your reply I respect your opinion and would fully protect your right to own a smart meter but please respect my right to not have one on my home.

  • 27 Biker // Nov 3, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Angel: “I want to be able to decide which tech i want for my family..”

    I think we _all_ want that, A. We only use mobile phones on long (two-to-six-month) motorcycle rides. Skype is our main form of telecommunication. Probablty saves us thousands.

    Angel: “(I’d) fully protect your right to own a smart meter…”

    No thanks! Where Synergy put ’em in, we had them take ’em out, replacing them with the older A1 technology… .

    We think consumers still have choice. As Greg says, if you’re using a computer, much of your use is being monitored anyway. Companies have lodged a host of cookies in your system. If you use any form of credit card, your purchases become part of a data bank on customer preferences.

    Like you, we’re wary of some technologies. We’ve opposed the construction of mobile towers near properties we’ve owned… and, failing in appeals, then sold any rentals which were near them. We wouldn’t feel right renting them to others… .

  • 28 Angel // Nov 3, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    @biker I like your reply and the fact you tore them out LOL.I to ride a bike and I’m doing up an old 1976 yamaha 400f daytona special.I use to use a mobile on long rides back 10 yrs ago.As I said before i don’t have a business so i don’t need to use my real name on the internet or email I use paypal not a credit card and I bought some good software for all those pesky cookies and trails you leave while surfing,I also prefer to use a search engine that does’nt spy on me like search and ixquick as they don’t retain your ip address.Thanks for responding happy riding but be careful,I raced motox for 8yrs with not to much damage road on the road for many years with just a few scratches then one day going around a slow bend on a country road my front wheel washed out on gravel I saved it and ran off the road into a clear paddock no fences but some bright spark dug a small ditch which stopped the bike and sent me flying over the bars,broke my back in 3 places smashed my pelvic plate in 5 places including my right hip joint clean through my left leg both my ankles and snapped of both my heels.Needless to say I don’t ride much these days but I sometimes get up to coles and back just for the feeling of FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!! LOL

  • 29 Biker // Nov 3, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Enjoyed your post, Angel.

    A roo wiped me out eleven years ago. Three months in hospital.
    No permanent damage, but I still have fifteen stainless pins and screws and one plate in my right leg.

    Greg will probably insist stainless isn’t a PM… and I’m off-topic… so I’ll quit while I’m ahead… . 😀

Leave a Comment



This site is not intended to act as any form of financial or investment advice.  © 2008–2015 Shareswatch Australia — DisclaimerCutline by Chris Pearson

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. Whilst we endeavour to keep the information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.