One cannot help but be amused by the great Worstall – slayer of the Greens – carrying multiple adverts for WWF on his blog (above – slightly tidied up: click the link to see the real thing).

I am sure there is a good free market rationale for carrying the propaganda of one's enemies for commercial gain, although I have to admit that it is a little bit difficult to work out. Personally, I prefer the donation model (thank you everybody) rather than turn this blog over to content I cannot control. But then, that's the "free" market for you – take the money and surrender control.

Thus says Tim Worstall (by default): buy a cuddly toy and save the planet. You know it makes sense.

View full article here

Also note that the Greens are PAYING their "enemy" for those ads, regardless of whether they sell anything from them or not! It would be good to understand if he is paid a flat rate simply for the ad being there, or whether his compensation increases if there is a click-through. One could surely help him drive his revenues, if THAT is the case!

He doesn't ... that's the point. And to others, yes ... it's his decision to take advertising on his blog. And I'm entirely at liberty to take the mick out of him for so doing - and to choose a different model.

On the deals that have been so far offered to me (or are available), there is limited control ... you can exclude groups, such as online gambling, porn, etc, etc, but by the time you have ticked all the boxes where there might be a conflict of interest, there is very little left. Case-by-case is not on offer, but if it was, then I would be prepared to consider it.

Same with WUWT, or it used to be, loads of ads to do with solar panels and invitations to contribute to the WWF.

I didn't see anything on Tim Worstall's site, then I remembered, I'd become sick of being pursued round the internet by ads vaguely themed on something I was once slightly interested in, so using Firefox, I installed Adblock Plus.

I use it and recommend it.

Why do you see it as an attack?

Are we so pompous and serious that there is no room any more for a little friendly mockery?

Anyone who writes:

"So this is where I identify the conspiracy in climate change. Not in the basic science, which I'm perfectly happy to accept. But in the discussion, the rules, the regulations, about what we should do about it."*

… is perhaps not quite on side anyway. He's always seemed to be "anti-green" in much the same way that Open Europe is anti-EU.

A review of his book on Amazon starts: "This isn't a "sceptic" book in that it accepts all the "consensus" science and policies of the IPCC and Lord Stern."

All in all, I think WWF and the rest owe him a few quid.



* http://blogs.telegraph.c...racy-or-is-it-a-cock-up/

Edited by user 16 December 2012 18:23:05(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

How could I possibly compete with Farage? The man does it so well unaided.

Touché! Good answer Richard. My point though, as I have oft expressed before, is that to progress the Harrogate Agenda you will need friends - a lot of them! No one is suggesting that you throw in your lot with any other organisation, far from it, but borrowing/stealing activists from them just maybe a good idea. I think the Harrogate Agenda is something that deserves to be shouted from the root tops and I know I'm not the only one in UKIP that thinks that way. I have already pointed quite a few members at your "Harrogate Demands" post, but when they get interested they may well be put off by your asides regarding UKIP. We know you and Farage have history, but lets not sink your initiative before it really gets started.

John,

long ago I had a manager whose duty it was to send me on tedious corporate courses he had as little time for as I did.

He said if I was really pissed off, direct argument was bound to fail and the way to tackle it was to become an enthusiastic disciple and then start asking questions, which were ideologically pure, but couldn't be answered. You supply ridiculous and ideologically pure answers for the lecturer who can't deal with your enthusiasm. You walk away from it having fully understood the course and being ready for the next, but having undermined the lot. You have never been negative about the course, quite the opposite. It works. The Socratic method.

The other approach is to draw exactly the wrong conclusions from the course. A diversity course is a course of instruction for the demagogue to manipulate and divide any given population along arbitrary lines and control it. Shame about the identified scum but the course organisers should have thought about the consequences. That one's harder to play but even more of a larf.

Worstall's gone for the Socratic approach, which is an attack on the jugular. After all, we don't care about a few millions paid to tossers playing with computer models and incompetently keeping temperature records, it's the hundreds of billions we're forking out to slay an imaginary monster.