We are really, really suing Al Gore really, and here is a silly graph

cite as: F. Bi. 2009. We are really, really suing Al Gore really, and here is a silly graph. Intl. J. Inact., 2:14–16

The inactivist New Zealand Climate ‘Science’ Coalition just made a grand announcement, with lots of pomp and fanfare, about the upcoming lawsuit against Al Gore or something. In Viscount Christopher Monckton’s own words:

There are now serious discussions afoot to lodge complaints against Gore to the federal financial and legal authorities, in that he fraudulently talks up the imagined “climate crisis” in the hope that he and his “green” investment corporation can profit by the baseless alarm that his falsehoods generate.

There are “serious discussions”… “now”? I wonder if this means that the “discussions” in the last 10 months or so about suing Al Gore were, in fact, not “serious”? (That sounds about right, since I can see no trace of the “notable attorneys” discussing this supposed case who Coleman claimed exist. In the meantime, you can sign the “Sue Us” Petition to get them to sue Al Gore for real.)

Also, here’s another gem from Monckton’s missive:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hugs it

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hugs it. Intl. J. Inact., 1:140

Tee-hee. I’ve made a related point over at Deltoid before, but this cartoon’s better. (Via Brave New Climate.)

In other news, the all-embracing Matthew Dentith has a blog post and a radio segment (13′ 23″, 3MB) up, on a climate conspiracy theory by one Peter J. Morgan, which says that global warming is a gigantic plot “to forge a ‘one world government’ controlled by the world’s power elite”. (More interesting than the conspiracy theory itself, in my opinion, is the reaction of the New Zealand Climate ‘Science’ Coalition, who try not to get themselves associated with the conspiracy theory even as they play footsie with it.)

Surge, groupthink, petition

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Surge, groupthink, petition. Intl. J. Inact., 1:112–114

Primo

On Monday, my blog got a plug from Mark Hoofnagle of Denialism… and this has caused a huge surge in hits on this blog as shown here. :) Thanks, Mark!

Secundo

So, I’d like to use this great opportunity to float a new idea of mine (while the attention mojo coming from Mark hasn’t yet run out…).

Diebold committed to delivering votes to James Hansen

cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Diebold committed to delivering votes to James Hansen. Intl. J. Inact., 1:86–88

Actually, this blog post isn’t about Diebold, but rather about Anthony Watts’s on-going online poll regarding James Hansen’s remark that

CEOs of fossil energy companies [...] should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Watts has said,

I will run this poll 1 week until next Wednesday at 9AM PST, at which time it will close. The results will be submitted to a member of the U.S. Senate for distribution, NASA’s director, and will also be mailed to Dr. Hansen at NASA GISS.

Wow! The poll results will be disseminated to lots of high-ranking honchos! It must be a pretty important poll then! So, given its significance, is Watts using every means he can to make sure the poll’s a sound, rigorous one?

Stirling: we have principles except when we don’t

F. Bi. 2008. Stirling: we have principles except when we don’t. Intl. J. Inact., 1:17–20

More from the trenches on the Listener brouhaha! For those who haven’t been watching it: It all started when a columnist for the New Zealand magazine Listener, Dave Hansford, wrote an unflattering article about some climate inactivists called the “NZ Climate Science Coalition”. The article made some inactivists really angry; and in a totally unrelated move, Listener editor Pamela Stirling decided to downsize samesize Hansford. NZ Hot Topic blogger Gareth Renowden wrote about these events (and more)¹… only to be faced with legal threats himself from the Listener! Yeah, it’s a mess, and it seems that legal proceedings are afoot.

So, in the latest development of this sorry saga, Robert McLachlan reports in a blog comment on an interview by Mediawatch with Stirling, regarding the magazine’s legal action against Hot Topic, and its editorial policy. Renowden and McLachlan have kindly pointed me to a podcast (9.1MB, 25′ 26″ MP3) of the interview.