Skeptics, by Peter Sawyer

Posted by Administrator (admin) on 13th February, 2010
S >>

Here is the article that Peter Sawyer send us:


Winning Skirmishes While You Lose the War - The Power of Words


Fifty years ago my grandfather was considered a pillar of the local community.  He was admiringly described by many as a man of “great discrimination”.  Today such a description would be regarded by most as a serious insult.


Same word, same spelling, but virtually the opposite meaning.  This didn’t happen by accident.  Quite the opposite; certain people who knew exactly what they were doing worked very hard for over a decade to bring about this change. Eventually some people started to wake up to what was being done with the language and why, but it was too late.  The age of “political correctness” was alive and thriving.


Score:  social engineers 10, rational thinkers 0.


It is of critical importance that folks in the current battle for climate sanity understand the lesson contained above, because exactly the same thing is happening now, perpetrated by exactly the same kind of people, for exactly the same reasons.  And unless you so-called skeptics wake up to the tactic you will go on winning minor battles while you go on losing the war.


From Al Gore on one side to Lord Monckton on the other, right down to the average person in the street, ask what the debate is all about, and the answer today will almost invariably be “climate change”.  Use of the term is now almost universal, even on so-called “skeptical” websites and blogs such as this one.


But is that really what the debate is about?  Does anybody, anywhere, dispute that climate “changes”?  If you stop and clear your head of the word-haze deliberately induced over the last decade, you will easily see that debating “climate change” makes about as much sense as discussing “wet rain”.  Was the rain wetter or drier last year?  Imagine some teenage Greenpeace recruit hitting you up in the street for a donation:


“But it’s true Mister, the rain is getting less wet every year, and pretty soon it will have no moisture in it all and everybody will die of thirst.  It’s possible it might even get so dry it could trigger a saturation wetness reversal and then sea-levels will rise a thousand feet and drown us all.  Look, here’s a graph by Dr Michael Mann at NASA proving it.  He’s the expert – trust me, the science is settled”.


Pure farce.  And yet that is exactly what is happening.  You have allowed yourselves to be taken in so much that these days you are even using language dictated to you by the enemy.  You are using words and terms specifically chosen by them for very specific reasons, reasons that have become abundantly clear with the recent snow storms in the USA.


The debate was, is and always will be about global warming.  And not just any old global warming, but man-made, or anthropogenic global warning, AGW for short.  Nothing realistic can be done about any other sort.  But you long ago stopped debating man-made global warming; you allowed the debate to become about “climate change”.


Most people will reply that it doesn’t really matter because we know what we really mean.  But it does matter.  It’s more than just important, it is critically important.  The language is being deliberately tailored to suit the other side, just as it was done a few decades ago with words like “discrimination”.  Consider this sentence about record blizzards and snow in the USA this week that appeared in “The Times”.


There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.


To the average person the flawed “logic” presented can be made to make perfect sense:  “climate” is everything to do with the weather, and more frequent “massive snowstorms” are a perfect example of “change”.  Therefore increasing massive snowstorms are to be expected as a result of “climate change”. 


Then all that needs to be added is a dash of social engineering:  people cause climate change.  Since people are causing “climate change” people are obviously going to make massive snowstorms more common in the future unless they change their ways.  People will simply have to do something about climate change if they are to avoid these storms becoming worse and more common.  What is needed is a carbon tax.  That will fix it.


However if the term “global warming” is substituted for “climate change” in the quoted sentence from The Times, it loses the whole basis for its flawed logic.  It is extremely difficult to convince people that a dramatic and sustained increase in global temperatures could cause an increase in frequency and amount of snowfall.


There is some evidence that global warming could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.


Most people know from personal experience (observation) that snow requires sustained intensely cold conditions to form, fall, and linger on the ground in drifts several feet deep.  And the increasing periods of sustained, intense cold required to make such occurrences more common would seem highly unlikely on a dangerously warming planet.  In a regime of “climate change”, maybe, but with “global warming”, no.


It would be farcical for teachers to be teaching a subject called “Global Warming”, with children unable to get to schools because of record snow falls.  But rest assured, those who can get to school are getting their daily dose of “Climate Change”.  Doubt it?  Google “climate change lesson plans” and see what comes up.  Go and have a look at some of this stuff and see what they are actually teaching your children.


Go have a look at the material at www.teachingclimatechange.com.au .  This is the preferred and recommended material for “science” lessons about “climate change” in Australian junior high schools today. 


If you think any of this has anything to do with “science” have a read of “Module 5 – the ethics of climate change”.  Go to the “class exercises” at the end then come back here and explain to me what on earth viewing and then discussing the “moral issues raised in the film Erin Brokovich” has to do with the “science” of climate change, global warming, or anything else for that matter.


This material is produced by “The Australia Institute” at www.tai.org.au.  This is the peak lobby group for “social change” (engineering) in this country.  Check out the list of their directors – a veritable who’s who of the Australian education system, with a healthy dose of welfare advocate bodies, the trade union movement, the legal profession, and the Australian Green Party thrown in for good measure.


The chairperson, for instance, is Ms Sarah Maddison, Senior Associate Dean of the School of Politics and International Relations, at the University of New South Wales.  Just the kind of person with exactly the right kind of qualifications and background you’d expect to find overseeing the preparation and dissemination of “science lesson material” for the “Science of Climate Change”.


Understand this is not, and never was, a scientific debate over “climate change”, or even “man-made global warming”.  It is an ideological war about global social engineering.  On the one side are the high priests of the “perfect, planned society”, and their brainwashed, programmed cult followers, and on the other are a small band of rational realists. At stake is the very concept of individual free thought.


So, first and foremost, you need to expunge the term “climate change” from your vocabularies once and for all and forever.  It is nonsense; a meaningless term better left for the priests and their cult followers to babble on about. 


If you are confronted by someone from the other side who insists on using the term in debate, ask them if the raindrops were wetter or drier last year.  When they ask what on earth you are on about, point out to them the ridiculousness of the very term “climate change” and ask them politely if they could get back to convincing you about man-made global warming while the northern hemisphere freezes over.


And what do you skeptics call these people anyway?  “Warmists” and “believers” seem to be the most commonly-used terms on contrarian websites and blogs.  My you are a gentle, polite crowd aren’t you? 


These people, one and all, are the either high priests, or the brainwashed congregation, of the Holy Church of AGW.  It’s a belief system based solely on faith-based dogma, and like all sects based solely on dogma, it is a cult.  Its proponents and followers are cultists, end of story.  Call them cultists from now on, when you write about them, when you discuss them, and especially when you are talking to them.  Trust me, they hate it.


If you are queasy about using such an emotionally-charged, personally hurtful, but nonetheless entirely apt term you really have no idea about what’s going on, and you may as well wander off and join Toast Masters instead.  They are into “polite debate”. 


Over here we’re waging a war, and we are currently out-numbered and out-gunned, and we are losing, despite the success of minor skirmishes like “climategate”, “glaciergate”, and all the other “gates” currently emanating from “Gates-R-Us”, formerly known as the IPCC. 


Speaking of that cesspool of deceit you can’t change the acronym “IPCC”, but you can certainly change what it stands for in your literature.  I suggest something like the “International Propaganda Collation Center”, but I’m open to suggestions.


That brings us to people on the contrarian side.  In the beginning they were just the other side of the debate.  Then they were branded “doubters” with the same emotional overtones used when born-again Christians talk about “back-sliders”.  Shame on you; you “doubted” the divine wisdom of the theory of Global Warming.  And yet people willingly wore the label.


Then it became the “science” of “Climate Change”.  “Doubters” were relabeled “skeptics”.   Then they changed the very meaning of the word skeptic, just as they did with “discrimination”.  Originally a “skeptic” meant somebody who chose to withhold judgment until presented with sufficient evidence (originating with Pyrrho of Elis simply as the withholding of judgment on everything). 


Today it means somebody who doubts what is otherwise generally accepted wisdom.  The change in meaning was engineered once all the “skeptics” naively and foolishly chose to wear the label.  People who accepted, and even proudly wore the title “skeptic” actually played an active part in that exercise in social engineering.


Do you believe AGW is “wisdom”?  Do you agree belief in it is “generally accepted” – that there really is a “consensus of opinion”?  The “science of AGW” is goobledygook, somewhat akin to fairy stories.  People who don’t believe in fairy stories are called adults, and people who don’t believe in gobbledygook are realists.  I am a realist.  What are you?


If you continue to accept and use the label skeptic, then by Xmas your repackaging as “deniers” will be complete and you will never be able to get rid of that odious label.  By actually accepting and using the title skeptic yourselves you are playing an active and significant part in your transition from “doubter” through “skeptic” to “denier” That’s how social engineering works; small, incremental steps with patient waiting in between until the change is accepted.   Then move on to the next step.  It’s also known as the “inevitability of gradualness”, or “how to boil frogs without them noticing”.


This is not, and never was, a “scientific debate” over “climate change”, between “consensus opinion” and “deniers”.  It is a no-holds-barred, to-the-death battle against global social engineering, being waged between realists on one side, and programmed, brainwashed cultists on the other.  Accept it, get used to it, and get on with it. 


Man-made global warming.  Cultists.  Realists.  These are the correct terms for engagement with the enemy.  In future use those terms, and only those terms.  You people can never hope to win what is essentially a war of words if you can’t even speak the language.


Peter Sawyer – Australia

Publisher:  “The Inside News” 1987 - 1994

Author: “The Green Hoax Effect” ©1990

Last changed: 15th February, 2010 at 12:04:11



By Unknown on 31st March, 2014 at 14:15:00
Peter Sawyer still owes me $1000 after the gold futures investment that he encouraged his subscribers to invest in, didnt work out too well. He said that he sold out of it and that a 10% loss was incurred..however he only ever returned 30% of my money and kept the rest for himself in spite of my numerous polite requests for it. Therefore I dont think anything of his reports . He has no credibility after what he did to a loyal subscriber at the time....how many others got stung I wonder
Skeptics by Peter Sawyer By Unknown on 28th January, 2012 at 09:13:18
I was really happy to read this contribution from Peter Sawyer. I subscribed to his publication Inside News from 1987 to 1993 and I was really sorry that I could not provide him with more financial support so that he could continue his seemingly One Man Campaign against Big Brother who was alive and well in Australia at the time and still is!
Does anyone know how I can contact Peter Sawyer as I have some interesting news to pass on to him - my website is http://www.capd.com.au and I can be contacted at info@capd.com.au - Regards to you both - Laurie Myers, Christian Activist, Sydney, Australia 28 January 2012
wilbgray By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 15:52:39
Its common for folk at work to beleive in the propaganda, ohh I just feel its overwelling conditioning. At the present time theres great work being done at WUWT and even at sceptical science, but alas I,m tired of it but somehow I know and I know the truth behind this global conditioning with propell humankind from a power autocrasy to one of intelligence. I say it must happen. We are far more intelligent that god. Ajust the last sentence as needed.
CW shonewald By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 12:45:19
- please checkout under "C": "Corals and the Great Barrier reef".
I think you will like it..

K.R- Frank Lansner
c.w. schoneveld By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 11:59:56
Another weapon used by the cultists is the malicious term acidification in discussing ocean water when it is becoming less alkaline, but is not yet acidic at all, and never will be.
Chris Edwards By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 01:17:26
Thank you, I have been saying this, abeit a whole lot less eloquently! for ages, the whole politically correct crap scares me and people smiled with sympathy. This is a subtle form of what 1984 warned (was'nt the author a socialist?)
Who are the real denialists? By Unknown on 16th February, 2010 at 19:54:55
With the charade of the science being undermined almost from within, those who grimly cling to the AGW doctrine are the real denialists.
John P.A.Knowles By Unknown on 15th February, 2010 at 12:03:21
As a long time fan of your work I've often quoted bits from "Greenhoax Effect" to disbelieving middle class twits but now they are starting to listen to me. Thanks so much for this site.

Add Comment