International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


Lambert-Monckton debate: we were wrong

[cite as: S. Stepanovich. 2010. Lambert-Monckton debate: we were wrong. Intl. J. Inact., 3:8]

As you may know by now, Deltoid blogger Tim Lambert had a debate on global warming with climate inactivist Christopher Monckton. Since Lambert accepted Monckton’s debate invitation unconditionally, and since the debate was widely publicized — for example, by the Australian Climate ‘Science’ Coalition and Joanne Nova’s blog — thus according to our global warming debate flowchart, inactivists should either proclaim victory for themselves, or throw a hissy fit and then proclaim victory for themselves. According to the flowchart, they might keep quiet about the outcome of a debate, but only if the debate wasn’t publicized widely in the first place.

However, we were wrong. Both the AC’S’C and Joanne Nova did keep quiet about the debate outcome, even though they’d widely announced the debate beforehand. We apologize for the error.



We need more summaries of stuff

[cite as: F. Bi. 2010. We need more summaries of stuff. Intl. J. Inact., 3:2]

Shorter Tom Harris: The organizers of the Copenhagen climate conference gave out way more NGO participant registrations than the conference centre could hold, leading to some really bad riots. This shows that global warming is a scam. [cached]

Shorter Frederik Engel: In the light of the Climatic Research Unit crack, the global warming alarmists are becoming the true deniers of truth! To show why this is the case, I’ll simply insinuate that the e-mails show climate scientists manipulating data. Manipulating data! No, I don’t need to show that they manipulated data, but the fact that they did manipulate data (which I don’t need to show) is proof that the global warming alarmists are trying to bring about a UN-led One World Government, and therefore the alarmists are wrong. Or something. [cached]


Climategate, where unauthorized eavesdropping is a heroic deed

[cite as: F. Bi. 2009. Climategate, where unauthorized eavesdropping is a heroic deed. Intl. J. Inact., 2:101]

Remember the Watergate scandal, in which the then US President Richard Nixon was forced to resign after being implicated in wiretapping attempts on the political opposition? Now the global warming inactivists are calling the recent cyber-attack against CRU by the name “Climategate”. Apparently they now think that unauthorized eavesdropping is a very heroic and noble deed.

In any case, the ‘independent, non-partisan’ climate inactivist groups such as the International Climate ‘Science’ Coalition and the Heartland Institute have lost no time trying to report ‘independently’ and ‘non-partisan-ly’ on the “Climategate” affair. Joseph Bast of Heartland writes:

Last week, someone (probably a whistle-blower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England) released emails and other documents written by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). […]

It is possible that the emails and other documents [leaked from CRU] aren’t as damning as they appear to be on first look. […] Looking at how past disclosures of fraud in the global warming debate have been dismissed or ignored by the mainstream media leads me to suspect they will try to sweep this, too, under the rug.

No, Joseph. They’re not damning even on first look. That’s why Bast needs to tell you what to think about the e-mails before you ‘read them for yourself’.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at