George Monbiot
The advocates of man-made global warming are getting “sick of reading” all the comments by the masses of skeptical public citizens.
They’re desperate enough to try to rally the troops in Blog Comment Land. They must be hurting.
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.
To sign up, just enter your e-mail address on their site.
Lucky you, you’ll get a message every day pointing you to climate change news articles where teams of coordinated unskeptical people might congregate to repeat the same messages you’ve heard every day for the last 20 years. Somehow AGW advocates hope these same messages will still work after their leading heroes were caught saying “pretty awful things” in e-mails. Somehow they feel sure people will be motivated to help scientists who hide parts of graphs, lose records, and leave out caveats and uncertainties in the megadocuments our tax dollars pay for.
There’s any number of angles you might want to take but pointing out that the vast majority of climate scientists are sure that man made climate change is happening is not a bad one.
Their suggested Step One: Argue from Authority.
Or how the fossil fuel companies are funding “think-tanks” whose job it is is to try and undermine the science of climate change.
Step Two: Go for the ad hom. Smear! Smear! Smear!
Or ..(I could go on forever). You’ve probably got lots to say already (so much truth to tell…) but you can also use the links on our Links page to back up your argument, or any of the further information on our Sceptics page.
Step 3: After the illogical stuff, and the bullying, then maybe you can consider some science.
One last suggestion from us – you can also consider going onto the offensive and explain that the real uncertainty about man-made climate change is not whether its happening but how fast its happening and that in fact there is increasing evidence that the mainstream science of the IPCC is actually underestimating the scale and imminence of the threat. See our Climate Emergency page and the links at the bottom.
While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners.
(BTW, my links page has some handy resources, and my index page will help you find topics I’ve written about; these are listed in the top right-hand column of every post).
It’s also better to think for yourself, instead of cutting and pasting baseless arguments contributing to a banker-and-bureaucrat propaganda campaign.
Remember: everyone makes a difference. And if course you can unsubscribe at any time.
The Campaign against Climate Change is run by George Monbiot, Liberal Democrat, Labour, and Green party MP’s, as well as a few journalists.
 |
Michael Meacher MP (Labour, Oldham West and Royton), Minister of State for the Environment: May 1997 – June 2003 |
 |
Norman Baker MP (Liberal Democrats, Lewes), Environment Spokesperson |
 |
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party, South-East) |
H/t Barry Woods.
I wouldn’t expect anything else from the extreme left.
10
I sometimes feel sorry for George Monbiot because ranged upon his side of the argument are politicians, journalists, silly royals, greenies, over paid celebs, prominent figures with carbon footprints bigger than their egos and people who need crib notes to engage in a debate. Not exactly the go to people for public trust.
10
I’ve subscribed…. I will now be able to target my comment in the same places as the Pro-AGW folks are… saves a lot of searching.
I promise to be polite as always.
———————
[Brilliant Ian. Thanks. Do pass on any interesting responses or sites you come across. “Funny” isn’t it, how open source always works for us, and not for them. If there are more skeptics than believers on their list, they’ll help to increase the number of anti-AGW comments on threads. –JN]
10
Monbiot: Or how the fossil fuel companies are funding “think-tanks” whose job it is is to try and undermine the science of climate change.
JK: Oh, like the fossil fuel money that helped fund the CRU, a foundation of the IPCC.
Monbiot: the real uncertainty about man-made climate change is not whether its happening but how fast its happening
JK: CRU head, Phil Jones (on leave while being investigated) answered that question in his interview with the BBC:
BBC: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
CRU Head, Dr. Jones: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Monbiot: and that in fact there is increasing evidence that the mainstream science of the IPCC is actually underestimating the scale and imminence of the threat
JK: Do you happen to have any evidence, beyond the 5000 or so green propaganda references in the IPCC report? Here is what Jones told the BBC about mainstream science:
BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
CRU Head, Dr. Jones: … I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
Monbiot: See our Climate Emergency page
JK: What emergency? Phil Jones, former CRU head said that warming stopped in 1995 and has reversed since 2002 in the BBC interview:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
CRU Head, Dr. Jones: Yes, but only just.
BBC: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
CRU Head, Dr. Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Did you really get taken by all that IPCC propaganda? For instance, Himalayan glacier melting was included for political reasons: Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0gaBUN0nw
Thanks
JK
10
Yeah, I already signed up on that site. Even our very own “Sphaerica” is sick of hearing our arguments according to his/her blog(whoever he/she/it)is.
For those who want to fight this on rational scientific grounds, do that, but remember it will be politics that decides. Doubt must be sown in the minds of the public. They won’t necessarily understand the arguments but if the alarmist proponents are also made fun of and ridiculed the member of the public will remember when their electricity bill arrives or when a politician wants to rip more money from them to “fight climate change”. The desired reaction is “ehh, that’s dodgy stuff innit?”
———————–
[Forgive me for being pedantic, but there is a even more useful way of phrasing things. Our first aim is not to “sow” doubt — it’s just to get across the other side of the story. We don’t need to sow anything – just speak the truth. If we toss out the seeds – quoting the ClimateGate emails for example – ideas will grow all of their own accord… Luckily for us, understaffed and underfunded, people hate to be taken advantage of, so we don’t need to match gloss 3000 page report with equivalent productions. We just need to point out a few things the media don’t. — JN]
10
I’ll sign up right now!
Ken
10
This is strange , as I thought something like this already existed. When you go onto any credible skeptic website or cedible general climate website there are always 2 or 3 pro AGW people rabbiting on with the same phrases , words , ridicule , name calling etc. Its as though they have a list of phrases
( maybe provided by the Gore “gospels” group ) to repeat.
But as Mike @ 5 says this is all about politics and money now and has been for a very long time. So hopefully Brown gets thrashed in the British election and Rudd can go the same way later.
I also think the average punter is absolutely sick of the arguments / propoganda in the MSM
10
I signed up to receive their daily alerts. Glad to “help” the left out. I’m a scientist and skeptic.
10
I suppose Carolus Linnaeus, Lotharsson, and Zibethicus, fingers are getting tired. Moinbott is trying to scare up a relief crew to give the minstrels a breather.
10
I don’t know, but at the risk of being ad hommy, the word gormless always springs to mind when I see George Monbiot. I mean the guy appears to mean well, but he leads with his emotions, like his experiences in Africa as a foundation for making his stance on climate change. Problem is, as I am sure has been pointed out to him, is that crop yields in Africa will probably increase as CO2 levels increase for the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately subjective emotions and scientific objectivity are mutually exclusive and George does not appear to have a handle on that fact. Even in economics, that most vague of the borderline sciences, we make the distinction between subjective (“normative”) arguments and objective (“positive”) arguments.
The Munk debate is a prime example of where George was quite out of his depth as soon as he was faced by debating opposition with a clue (Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Lawson <– Nigella's dad):
http://www.munkdebates.com/
The debate question was:
"Be it resolved climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.”
As a result of the arguments made there was a significant swing in the Pro-AGW audience moving to the Con-AGW side:
PRE-DEBATE
PRO: 61% CON: 39%
POST-DEBATE
PRO: 53% CON: 47%
This is a very sigbificant swing when you take into account how fixed people tend to be in their beliefs relating to the subject.
Full written transcript here:
http://www.munkdebates.com/media/ClimateChangeFullTranscript.pdf
10
In the process many alarmists will probably get exposed to the truth and the sensible ones will likely become skeptics. Unless they want to censor the world Id say the AGW titanic is sinking fast – soon the only ones who will believe it are the green cartel – left politicians, green corporates and religious green fanatics.
10
This is interesting on three levels:
Firstly, there is the mindset that, to achieve something, you “need to get organised”. Free thinking is an anathema to those who believe that a hive-mind represents the perfect model for society. It is a prerequisite of the “left”, that everything must be controlled, and permission obtained, before anything can be done. The old cold-war joke was, “… a forty-three minute period of spontaneity is permitted, commencing at …”.
Secondly, and because of the above mindset, the cultists simply cannot accept that the number of passive sceptics is now larger than the number of passive alarmists, simply because of the organic and spontaneous nature of the internet.
Finally, this “initiative” is being taken just as the British election process gets underway … no connection there, of course.
10
As I expected. Be prepared for the big push to win the case for the AGW alarmists at all costs using every dirty trick in the book – and they will most likely succeed for one simple reason. There has not been one case of an AGW alarmist being charged with fraud, taken to court, found guilty and punished appropriately. So, they appear to have a free reign to lie their way all to the end – and the end is they will most likely win thanks to the media in general supporting the AGW cause.
10
Bulldust: #10
Now that you mention it, he does seem to be somewhat lacking in gorm.
10
Jo.
Excellent stuff as always…keep hammering away at these charlatans and crooks.
We in the UK love you (even though embarrassingly, most of this stinking bull cr*p originated here and continues to be forwarded by obvious whitewash) may you Oz’s win the next Ashes 5-0!
10
TinyCo2 #2
‘…prominent figures with carbon footprints bigger than their egos..’
You may be correct but… can you be sure you have correctly estimated their egos? (Using parsecs for the radius the number is still rather large 🙂
10
Burden of proof in science:
1. It is for those that propose a claim or problem to show all evidence and proof for their proposition
2. It is not for the skeptical scientists to prove their proposition is wrong or internally-consistent
3. The pseudo-scientific ground of “precaution” does not apply and must not be tolerated based on emotions or popularity contests, or majority consensus
That is how science works, and that is the hill that must be climbed for those proposing a theory.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” — Albert Einstein
All we want from the alarmist is proof.
10
Peter @ 13. There is a case coming up in the USA whereby the EPA’s recent classification of CO2 being a “pollutant” is to be challenged. The basis of the argument against it is to be if CO2 is a pollutant why is water vapour not also classified the same way ? See this article
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/global_warming_on_trial.html
10
How pathetic – their list of Vice Presidents and advisory group is a list of people who’s livelihood depends on AGW being true. Monbiot is just a tool. The website forum seems to have been going since 2006 and has obviously been a dismal failure hence this campaign to give it a leg up. Yawn.
10
Who are these people ?
More campaigners, advocacy journalists, socio-political analysts & politicians, telling us what to think.
Is there anyone credible among them ?
I’m afraid the old world etiquette of debate & discussion just doesn’t register with such types.
If you want to advocate a position, rather than seek the truth, then ad homs, appeals to authority & to populism, crowding out and ultimatelly shouting down are favoured tactics.
10
janama: @ #19:
April 18th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Says,
Action Points Arising from Demo Logistics Meeting: 19/10/05
When did they come up with the silly Campaign Against Climate Change moniker.
It sounds about as sensible as Campaign Against The Natural Laws of the Universe.
10
Kirk Myer of examiner.com writes a very good article debunking Martin Rees, (president of The Royal Society,) and Ralph J. Cicerone’s (president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) latest pathetic dummy spit.
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m4d16-Top-scientists-rush-to-defend-discredited-theory-of-runaway-global-warming#comments
10
“I sometimes feel sorry for George Monbiot ….”
He’s an idiot. He’s just another CO2-bedwetting fraud. I don’t know why anyone would feel sorry for him unless he was caught up in one of Saddams rape-rooms or something. Take this from his post TV-debate write-up:
“Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian’s James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.”
I assure you that I have set this idiot straight on the issue of undersea versus above ground volcanoes. Yet nowhere can I find even one retraction from him on this score. Really we’d want an apology from him and Tony Jones for their apparent collusion, in using this nonsense to try and publicly humiliate Plimer. They were both trying to discredit Plimer AND mislead the public.
I just find incredible that people who are supposed to be taking an interest in this matter would not think it strange that the US Geographical Survey was using a moronic 1990 study to contradict Plimer in 2009. This goes beyond the realms of a stupid mistake. This has been brought to Monbiots attention. Many times. Rather forcefully.
To get the real lowdown on what goes on in the oceans we want to listen to people who have actually sent robots down there. Pretty much confirming the thrust of Plimer’s estimates which Plimer said on TV that he was basing on the oceans sedimentary rocks. But these two colluding chumps refused to listen to him. All that mattered in their view was the brandname of the US Geological Survey.
Here is someone with the real story about the oceans. Endless volcanoes. Like the seam on a giant baseball. It all really rather seems to back up growing earth theory.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oceans.html
10
Graeme Bird @23:
Jones, Monbiot and the like want to be right. They’re not interested in the truth, facts or the consequences of them possibly being wrong.
10
Well anyway I’ve sent them my email. I think its a good idea to send ones email. If there is a stoush on anywhere it will be good to know about it, just in case one is at a loose end. Over at Joanne’s last essay on ABC Unleashed, the brain dead crew may have given up. I quoted one of the emails. The one about “Mikes nature trick.” That may have been so shocking that they will throw in the towel for a little while.
I wonder when people will get around to auditing their CO2 figures. They’ve lied about everything else. Its unlikely that they are telling the truth on that score.
10
Poor old Kevin Trenberth is lost again. He cannot find the lost heat. Reckons its deep down in the ocean
http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sQGrEgMsKa6_R-DQO91AOkg/view.m?id=386382&tid=120787&cat=Climate_change
There is also a very good article by Roger Piekle Snr on ICECAP and on his own site out linig a debate he is having with Trenberth on this
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/is-there-missing-heat-in-the-climate-system-my-comments-on-this-ncar-press-release/
Is this going to end up as ” We cannot find the lost heat. It is a travesty !!”
10
[…] Climate wars – flailing and failing alarmists continue their lying, cheating tactics ; AKPC_IDS += "5529,"; […]
10
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/earth/how-many-volcanoes-are-there/
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2831536.htm
10
Graeme Bird:
Not sure if it is worth a shot, but you could always write to Mediawatch and see if they run the criticism of Jones/Monbiot.
Yeah, who am I kidding?
10
For those of you who don’t frequent ICECAP, check out the Item dated April 17th: “Top scientists rush to defend discredited theory of ‘runaway’ global warming” By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
They’re circling the wagons again:
More at the link.
10
I have been waiting for a while, but in the wake on the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terrorism” I have been looking for the “War on Climate Change!”
It’s only a matter of time… after all, people have been talking of green armies already.
10
This is very good news! People are not as stupid or gullible as they hope. The campaign itself will help to highlight non consensus. The recruitment of well intentioned but ill informed people will backfire. Some will do some study to prepare themselves. When they realise they have been duped and used they will turn on the myth with a vengence and zeal. Others will wake up because they realise the people that are reciting these mantras have no clue.
I plan to be understanding and encourage them as they do wake up. It takes time to unlearn the indoctrinations. “Not evil just wrong” because they have been too distracted or trusting to check. The polarized ones will also have trouble understanding that skeptics are proud about the fact that we don’t all agree with each other. They may also have trouble understanding that a lot of us hate pollution and polluters.
This misinformation splatter campaign will also offend many who notice notice it for what it is or just notice that something they say is wrong. Comments made by warmers about the suns effect on the ionosphere were wrong. This woke me up because of the radio comms part of my electronics background. As most of you know once you clearly see something wrong you begin to check other things. Then you see more of it is wrong or overstated. They cannot predict or expect who will wake up angry or what will trigger the awakening.
This will be fun to watch.
Lance Pidgeon
10
You see this a lot. I have often noticed AGW rants end off on some social justice tangent about poor nations and the sins against the planet.
It’s just some big muddled ball in their minds. AGW just fits so well with their postmodern secular socialist psyche. Some nations have become rich from cheap energy (via fossil fuels), and now we must repent and change our ways to help the poor and the planet.
10
I couldn’t imagine anything more dangerous to our well-being then the parlous state that science is in right now. You either have a situtaion where smart and intellectually honest people are getting the promotions or you have the current situation where the stupid and craven have become upwardly-mobile. Asked for substantiation of that claim I usually retort that I have two words for you: “carbon sequestration.”
Five years ago my only specific expertise would have been in economic theory. Well I guess thats still the case now. But upon investigating this anti-CO2-racket I’ve been finding out just how unsound most of the science not directly connected with commercial endeavour appears to be.
For example, whilst these dummies are insisting on a man-made catastrophe resultant about too much of something, that all the actual evidence shows, is good for the biosphere ………. the science maffia generally, sends people to the outer dark if they show up with evidence for catastrophes brought to us from the rest of the galaxy.
Now we aren’t prepared for any of this sort of thing. We don’t even have distributed electrical generation. Where I am the generation of electricity appears to be all or almost all, in one area. A single bombing raid would take it out. A nuclear bomb exploded over North America would short out all of their wiring, perhaps bringing the place to total chaos and mass-death within a year. Same here of course.
But its not just nuclear weapons we aren’t prepared for. I haven’t retained the details. But I was listening to this claim that even recently there had been a coronal mass ejection which fortunately was not aimed at earth. It came out of the sun on a spot that had almost disappeared from the earths view. Had it been pointed directly at us, the speaker was contending it may have shorted out all our electrical equipment. Which these days means all our vehicles as well. Everything would just stop. Then we’d have violence and millions of people dropping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Its no big deal chairing the safety committee, since in NSW work-care demands that we have an employees safety committee chaired by one of the plebs. Which at one time was me. And I noticed that I could get capital expenditures through for investments that would increase productivity, if I could also show that they would improve safety.
To my mind this is the same sort of approach we ought to be taking with respect to public works investment and general economic policy. If you can introduce gradual change that will 1. Improve matters economically 2. Make us more resistant to nuclear intimidation or attack and 3. Also help us cope with coronal mass ejections (and other even worse potential catastrophes that we might expect to be visited upon us from the rest of the galaxy)……. then these sorts of things ought to be brought to the head of the cue. (I was going to say “fast-tracked” but trying to do things quickly blows out costs.)
But our science culture has become so brain-dead and ideological that people just don’t think in this way. Not only are these science maffia types stupid and unscientific, they are incredibly boring. One would not think you could make such a thing as science so tedious. But this crowd (who seem to dominate on a number of fronts) have managed, what one would have thought would be, an impossible task. The most interesting, and the most scientific stuff, appears to be on the fringes.
On the fringes I heard the claim that all of the main supernovas in history, ie those visible to the naked eye, were actually caused by a single galactic event. The claim is that the same shockwave that caused the Vela supernova also caused all the others. We are living in a period wherein the consequences of the shockwave, that caused the Vela supernova, now seems to have petered out. We are living at a time when we might someday expect another shockwave and therefore another cycle of supernovae, with disastrous consequences here on earth.
Now I haven’t been able to prove this to an extent which goes beyond my own satisfaction. But you would think it would be something that needed serious checking out. But this is not to be. As the Winters around the world get more and more severe, these blockheads, pretending to be scientists, are sucking up all the media-oxygen, with their big fat fake disaster. Meanwhile they are desensitizing people to the possibility of real disasters on the way. Disasters coming from nuclear weapons, or from the rest of the galaxy. What ought to be the good news is that some of the preparations for both may be quite similar, not requiring the need to double up on public spending. What I’m saying is that the costs which we need to defend against all these thing need only come out of a more realistic and holistic approach to our national defense.
Our White Papers on defense are narrow unholistic affairs. They don’t consider that we are in trouble if a nuclear sub can get within 100’s of kilometres of Sydney because of the unsound way our populations are distributed. They don’t go into city layout decades hence, and how we might slowly encourage a change to the distribution of population that will make our act survivable. We haven’t got the mindset necessary to survive the 21st century. We have to change our thinking or we won’t be making it through. That means the same sort of suffering that we read about in our history books and we see in the news will be making its way here. And our inability to see the wider picture more clearly has a lot to do with the dysfuntion in the un-science ascendancy of the truly stupid.
10
Twawki:
You Say,
Unless they want to censor the world Id say the AGW titanic is sinking fast – soon the only ones who will believe it are the green cartel – left politicians, green corporates and religious green fanatics.
Unfortunately the left politicians, green corporates, and religious green fanatics, seem to have sway at this time, what’s needed is a well organised and comprehensive counter campaign. Despite all the excellent sceptic blog sites the word is not getting to the masses fast enough.
10
Paddy Manning had this to say at the end of his rave on Joe Hockey in the SMH.
There were no comments available so I sent him this email
10
How to fight back against a smear campaign. ?
Well, how about a central issue / point that forms the basis of AGW, most have overlooked, misinterpretted, or were not aware of.
Over at Jeff Id’s air blog vent in this thread,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/kernel-of-science/#comment-25530
Post 111 by Brego is of great interest. Please take the time to read it.
He shows why the basis of all atmospheric CO2 spectra plots has a serious problem.
This is potentially a “death nail” serious error in the consensus science “radiative physics” of AGW.
Which leads me to think, errr MLO technique / method of measureing atmospheric CO2 levels…..
If it is right, atmospheric spectra are wrong, or if the atmospheric spectra are right, MLO is wrong.
They, it would appear can not agree with each other as they so conveniently do so at present.
10
janama:
Isn’t Joe Hockey’s wife an executive of one of the major banks, Deutsche Bank I believe, so while ever theirs money in it for the family I can’t see Joe fighting the ETS.
10
This is fascinating. Does Monbiot really think that adding more voices to the cacophony of climobabble will make a whit of difference?
The fascinating thing is that it’s a bit like adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. When the mean free path of infrared photons is already small compared to the depth of the atmosphere, making it a little smaller cannot possibly matter much.
Adding another to the myriad voices in your head will not make you that much more insane.
10
OK. I give in … I am totally prepared to accept that the world is going to go to hell in a hand-basket because we have done NOTHING about the constantly increasing average global temperature EXCEPT waste millions on preparing huge reports and holding expensive conferences and flying delegates around the world while all the time THE EARTH is slowly being cooked and is turning into acid oceans that will destroy the coastline and kill-off all of the poor starving Polar Bears.
What we MUST do NOW is to stop talking about Climate Change, stop wasting money in researching what we already know, which is that carbon in the atmosphere is INCREASING whilst we waste valuable time just TALKING ABOUT IT.
Starting today, we need to divert all of the millions paid in climate research, climate conferences, climate literature, and climate advocates into DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE about the problem. There is only one solution – divert ALL of the current climate funding into Nuclear Fusion research before it is too late!
Whew! What was the recipe for that drink, again?
10
Hmm, the barrage of propaganda has started for the AGW crowd who will be celebrating Lenin’s birthday (22 April) next week. Except it it will be called Earth Day.
10
Louis Hissink: #41
I doubt that the date is a coincidence, given our previous discussions on the Fabians.
10
Ross @ 18.
You Offer, There is a case coming up in the USA whereby the EPA’s recent classification of CO2 being a “pollutant” is to be challenged.
We can only hope for the best, when court cases were mentioned on an earlier thread, Richard S Courtney offered the following cautionary advice.
You suggest that “law suites” may benefit AGW sceptics because ‘warmers’ will
“have to put their case and its supporting evidence out in public and then some friend of the court will submit a brief that shoots a hole in global warming that a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier could drive through.”
Sorry, but that is not true.
Law Courts assess the credibility of opinions. They do not have the technical expertise to assess scientific arguments.
So, Law Courts assess the apparent credibilty of witnesses and decide which witness to believe. Governments have appointed AGW-advocates to positions of authority, and a Law Court will alway agree that such witnesses present the ’science’ that should be accepted.
For example, James Hansen is head of NASA GISS. He attended a criminal trial in the UK where a group of people were being tried for deliberately damaging a coal-fired power station. Hansen said the CO2 emissions from the power station were doing much more harm than stopping the power station could do.
UK law says that it is lawful to damage personal property as a method to prevent greater harm. For example, a person is entitled to smash a door that is preventing rescue of a child from a burning building and – according to UK law – the owner of the door has no right to object to the door being smashed.
Hansen’s testimony is not sustainable by scientific argument: there is no possibility that the power station is making (or could make) significant contribution to AGW even if the ‘worst case’ scenario for AGW were correct.
But Law Courts do not consider the merit of scientific argument. They only consider which expert they will agree is ‘right’.
And Hansen’s authority as an expert on AGW is proclaimed by the fact that the US Government has appointed him as head of NASA GISS. So, the Court decided – as it must – that Hansen’s evidence was the most credible ’science’. And there is no AGW sceptic in a similar position of authority whose testimony could dispute that (governments have removed all similar experts from their jobs for disputing AGW; e.g. Henk Tennekes).
So, on the basis of Hansen’s testimony, the Court decided to acquit the people who damaged the power station.
Indeed, another case was won by AGW sceptics but they only won because they understood that Law Courts only consider which expert the Court will agree is ‘right’: Law Courts do not assess scientific evidence.
The winning of that case prevented Mr Gore’s science fiction horror movie being shown in schools without explanation to the children that the movie is political propoganda. The government wanted to distribute the movie in schools as being a presentation of the scientific facts. But a UK High Court ruled that the government could not do that because the movie exagerated at least eleven statements by the UN Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In this case the Court accepted that the IPCC is the expert authority that should be believed and, therefore, that Mr Gore was a lesser expert so his presentation in his movie should not be believed.
Simply, scientific evidence only consists of empirical facts but legal evidence only consists of opinions.
So, AGW sceptics would always lose a legal case that disputed AGW because governments have ’stacked the deck’ by appointing AGW-advocates to positions that give them supreme authority as ‘expert witnesses’.
Indeed, I am holding in my hand the full Report of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee investigation of ‘climategate’ (the Select Committee has kindly sent me two copies). It is very obvious that this Report represents a legal – and not a scientific – understanding of ‘evidence’.
10
Hey! You forgot something in this sentence:
…scientists who hide parts of graphs, lose records and leave out caveats and uncertainties in the “megadocuments”…
It should also read, “cite bogus literature”.
You’re welcome. 🙂
10
to be fair to George he is honourary president – Don’t know how much actual work that involves..
I just googled some names: (Phil Thornhill – )
Phil Thornhill-The co-ordinator of the Campaign against Climate Change.
also the same writing below at the International Socialist Group.
Would lead me to think where his political idealogogies might lie.
Climate Change
The Blame Game
Phil Thornhill
http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article300
10
tide: # 39
Apparently not. I had a skulk around the site, and the RSS feed, and it is all push, but no debate. I may have missed something of course – it was only a cursory look.
But even then, I was left with the distinct impression that they are actually scared stiff of debate. The articles were full of conditional sentences, but few verifiable facts.
My current hypothesis is that somebody has signed a fixed price contract for a PR firm, and want to get their money’s worth.
10
Bob @ 43 ( and Richard ). I don’t entirely agree. There are thousands of court cases where expert testimony is used , technical and/or scientific. Although I agree that it comes to whose opinion / fact is agreed to , it does not mean court cases should not be tried ( again and again if necesssary ). At least it forces the debate out in the open in a more even playing field than the sham inquiries in the UK.
The case sited by Richard was unsual in the fact that the defence lawyers used a very unsual defence — there was a similar case in NZ recently using this defence where 3 guys had broken into a satelite tracking station and made alot of damage. They admitted to the damage but they got off on trial because they argued that their action helped saves lives in the Iraq war !!.
So I still have hope that these US cases will have an opportunity to succeed.
10
I’ve subscribed. Bring on the “fightback against the fightback”! Should be fun …
10
You’d have to be pretty thick to think that “going on the offensive” means “being offensive”.
10
MattB, no one was thinking that lawl.
10
Hey Bob (35) Agree it could be faster but word is getting out, people are talking and things are happening. What the AGW crowd have done is destroyed their credibility by their ongoing litany of lies – hard for anyone to come even close to trusting them now, regardless of what they say. Especially as the climate cools and we are facing punitive warming taxes the green religion is ensuring people sit up and take notice – of their hypocrisy!
10
Greenpeace’s call to go on the offensive, was pretty offensive:
I would suggest such behaviour is SOP – business as usual – both for the Green/Left nexus and for warming alarmists (Are they really different constituencies?)
MattB, of course, as a principled man was quick to denounce the Greenpeace offensive…
10
MatB, you’d have to be pretty thick to think a link to Desmogblog isn’t “being offensive”.
10
And you’d have to be pretty stupid and offensive to offend the host by referring to her as being “thick” all the while being “thick” yourself in not recognizing the irony or pun in referring to “going on” the offensive, as “being” offensive.
Afterall, the whole idea of a Campaign Against Climate Change website, trying to lure volunteers after having spent billions on AGW, after having had almost all of the MSM behind it, not to mention the vast majority of politicians, NGO’s etc is quite funny. Humour is certainly in order.
But a jerk who’s been intellectually pummelled day after day, by blogger after blogger, would refuse to recognise that and fall back on to the tried and trusted lemming-alarmist response of an offensive remark.
And typically, recognizably, not much more than a one line contribution either.
But then again, once a jerk, always a jerk.
10
SUBJECT: SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING…Coldest weather in 30 years marks the start of a series of extreme winters
However, scientists are now warning that Britain can expect to endure a series of extreme winters – the like of which have not seen for more than 300 years.
Researchers have found that low solar activity – marked by a decrease in the sun’s magnetic field – influences the weather conditions across northern Europe.
The last time the sun showed similar behaviour, between 1650 and 1700, temperatures dropped so low that Londoners were able to skate and hold fairs on the iced-over River Thames.
MORE:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589931/Coldest-weather-in-30-years-marks-the-start-of-a-series-of-extreme-winters.html
10
National socialist site Larvatus Prodeo still following the Monbiot/Jones lie about volcanic CO2 emissions. This even after they have been corrected by one of the posters there.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/18/how-are-the-eyjafjallajokull-eruption-emissions-counted/
10
Blog warfare is an interesting question.
If I were an environment minister with an ETS to get through I would want to minimise the chance of opposition, especially a ‘red-shirt’ style build up of popular political momentum. A competent minister would therefore have a couple of (paid) people on his or her team to er, troll the blogs and post against the sceptics they find.
It would have to be hidden behind hotmail type addresses as a cut out to prevent outrage should the story get out.
So, in my view blog warfare is going on already, and if not then our pollies are incompetent.
Remember Wikipedia and the rewritten 5,428 climate articles.
10
the public would support this?????
19 April: Age: ANDREW MACINTOSH AND TOM FAUNCE : A sensible tax for our hospitals
(Andrew Macintosh is associate director and Tom Faunce associate professor at the Australian National University Centre for Climate Law and Policy)
Here’s a chance for big polluters to support the national well-being
The solution to the Prime Minister’s problem is a tax on the release of greenhouse gas emissions by major polluters (e.g. coal-fired power stations and oil companies), otherwise known as a carbon tax. A low to moderate carbon tax would raise in the order of $3 billion to $7 billion a year and a substantial proportion of this could be used to fund Rudd’s health package.
Such a proposal provides a solution to two of the great challenges of our generation: how to effectively respond to the healthcare needs of an ageing population and how to deal with climate change…
Reallocating some of the funds from a carbon tax to health and hospitals could broaden support for a carbon price. It is good policy likely to garner public support in an election year…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-sensible-tax-for-our-hospitals-20100418-smhx.html
more proof CAGW is simply a revenue raiser:
17 March: Reuters: Timothy Gardner: New Jersey latest U.S. state to raid carbon auction funds
NJ moves $65 mln from climate fund to general fund
Money came from Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
New Jersey has become the latest state in a regional cap-and-trade market on greenhouse gases to take money meant to support clean energy programs to help ease its budget deficit…
New York Gov. David Paterson decided last year to use $90 million from RGGI auctions to help ease that state’s deficit…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1717846620100317
10
Clive Hamilton is one sick puppy!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/population-debate-misses-the-facts-20100418-smew.html
10
The fight back isn’t just amongst warmist. Recently the US Tea party groups are lately being hit with propaganda smears too. It would be paranoid thinking to say that it is the same forces behind it right?
10
Actually Feuillet in #50
If you read the above article it takes this quote from the linked website: “One last suggestion from us – you can also consider going onto the offensive”
To which Jo says: “While they recommend being offensive, I recommend good manners”
So actually it is EXACTLY what is said. Going on the offensive has been used to mean the opposite of good manners. You have to admit it is twisting words and sneaky. The website does not recommend being offensive.
10
pat: #58
Err, I thought that the arrangement was for developed countries to pass all carbon taxes to the UN for onwards
largesseredistribution to undeveloped countries.Are they saying that “nice” Mr Rudd would try to syphon some of for domestic purposes? Surely not!
10
janama: #59
What parts of Australia does that not apply to today? Oh yes, Perth and Tasmania – not much change then.
10
Ahhh Humbug in #54 – is was “humour” was it. yeah right.
10
MattB: # 61
Matt, that is the second time you have made a good point. You really must stop doing that.
10
“Err, I thought that the arrangement was for developed countries to pass all carbon taxes to the UN for onwards largesse redistribution to undeveloped countries.”
Rereke where did you get that fabrication?
10
As The bard once said, “The truth will out.” The proponents of AGW are going to pull out all the stops in order to keep the taxpayer funded gravy train rolling along. When the midterm elections in the U.S. occur in November the games will really begin.
It was always about the money and it always will be! When the cash flow ends so will the AGW scam!
10
Eddy, good to see you again!
10
Ronnell @ #55
A certain volcano has been predicted to drive cooling in the northern Hemisphere. Cynically I would say it is just the break the AGW crowd has been looking forward to explain the cooling of the last 10 years.
10
Met Office credibility takes a dive:
German airlines question extended flight ban
Bans based on computer simulation.
10
SUBJECT: Maurice Newman is dead right about the ABC
Almost two years ago, ABC1 presenter Tony Jones told Crikey publisher Eric Beecher and a Melbourne audience that between 2001 and 2008 the members of the Lateline team made up their minds about the science of climate change. The sceptics, they’d decided, were wrong.
MORE:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/australia/5912178/maurice-newman-is-dead-right-about-the-abc.thtml
SO MUCH FOR UNBIASED DEBATE AND REPORTING FROM THE ABC (All Bullshit & Censorship).
10
SUBJECT: Alarmist models shut Europe’s air travel
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/alarmist_models_shut_europes_air_travel/
10
Nations to seek billions in ‘climate debt’
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/nations-to-seek-billions-in-climate-debt/story-e6frfkui-1225801565274
Africa agrees on secret climate damages demand | International | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLH624029._CH_.2400
10
MattB:
April 19th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Actually, jerk in #61
Jo quoted from the site thus..
And she followed it with this line..
Did Jo link to her “Guide for Comments” page in order to demonstrate how to be polite? NO
So this was clearly a play on words, HUMOUR as I already pointed out to your feable inadequate brain.
You also say…
Sneaky? Sneaky? You tool, how can it be sneaky if she posted the quote and her response immediately under it for all to read?
Unless ofcourse you think that you are soooo sooo smart that only you noticed the play on words.
You insinuate that Jo tried to “sneak” this in hoping readers wouldn’t notice. An indication of your sum total respect for Jo. That thought actually reveals you as the dumbest blogger here you jerk.
Furthermore, you demonstrate why you are a jerk and a rude troll by accusing your host of being sneaky. It would never occur to you that there are POLITE ways to frame your comment or question.
The fact that Jo has hosted you here for months and months, tolerated your rude OFFENSIVE behaviour throughout that time, even supported you when you were unfairly treated by others indicates that she deserves a little consideration by jerk trolls like you.
But you wouldn’t even know what the term consideration means as you’ve amply demonstrated many times before.
Like I said, once a jerk, always a jerk.
10
SBJECT: CRU’s forecast: UK winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”
take a look at this prediction from the east anglia climate research unit made in march 2000.
They certainly got THAT prediction wrong!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cru%e2%80%99s-forecast-uk-winter-snowfall-will-become-%e2%80%9ca-very-rare-and-exciting-event%e2%80%9d.html
10
Maybe it’s time to to say bye bye to the global warming troll known as “MattB”…..
No doubt the individual concerned would be more at home on one of the LEFTIST LOVIN blogs such as the ABC or “The Age”…….
10
Meteorology – Australian Style
It was April and the Aboriginals in a remote part of Northern Australia asked their new elder if the coming winter was going to be
cold or mild.
Since he was an elder in a modern community he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that
the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members
of the tribe should collect firewood to be prepared.
But being a practical leader, after several days he had an idea.
He walked out to the telephone booth on the highway, called the Bureau of Meteorology and asked, ‘Is the coming winter in this area going to be cold?’
The meteorologist responded, ‘It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold.’
So the elder went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared.
A week later he called the Bureau of Meteorology again. ‘Does
it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?’
The meteorologist again replied, ‘Yes, it’s going to be a very
cold winter.’
The elder again went back to his community and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later the elder called the Bureau again. ‘Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?’ he asked.
‘Absolutely,’ the man replied. ‘It’s looking more and more like
it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever.’
‘How can you be so sure?’ the elder asked.
The weatherman replied, ‘Our satellites have reported that the Aboriginals in the north are collecting firewood like crazy, and that’s always a sure sign.’
10
Ronnell:
April 19th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Nah, too obstinate to leave and too dumb to know when he has been treated like a joke.
10
Years actually – I think I was just about 1st cab off the ranks.
10
MattB has been having a bit of a weird trot lately … he was caught firing a potshot at Willis Eschenbach at WUWT too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/come-rain-or-come-shine/
Perhaps the call to arms has him all fired up?
10
@ Baa Humbug
Still trying to teach a pig to sing?
I am sure Matt was not being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous but was, well, just being Matt. I hope I am not butting into a lovers quarrel. I am sure you guys will be buddies again in no time.It is nice to know that there is at least one contant in th universe. You got to admit, Baa, this site would be a little less exciting without having Matt to argue with! 😉
10
Bulldust this site was down so I had a peek at wattsup.
10
Hey Eddy – hope you are well. Humbug has his knickers in a twist as I dared suggest that a project he must have been involved in was a waste of time fraudit*. Ahh well.
* I may also have called him an assclown. Do you remember that scene from Gostbusters
Dr Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here.
Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!
Mayor: Is this true?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it’s true.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick.
10
Mark @60: “Recently the US Tea party groups are lately being hit with propaganda smears too.”
The Tea Party is being smeared in anticipation of Cap and Trade and Immigration reform. The politicos know the people oppose those proposals vehemently and are egging some nut job on to cross the line. When that provocation bears fruit, it will be used to silence the opposition by taking them off the air and out of print.
Yes, it is a lot like the warmist movement where all dissenters must be taken down no matter what. What they did to Joanne over at The Drum is a case in point and amounts to a travesty and a half. I’m glad to see so many here are fighting back! 🙂
10
Eddy Aruda:
April 19th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
G’day Eddie, good to have you back.
No, I’m afraid this is not a lovers quarrell and I certainly will not be buddies with a jerk.
There is only 4 possible endings to this.
1-) I get banned from Jos
2-) Jerk gets banned from Jo’s
3-) We both get banned from Jos
4-) The trolling jerk apologises to me for being an obstinate, obfuscating, evading offensive troll.
Seen as no: 4 will never happen, it’ll be 1-3.
You see? he is insinuating I got no dick. I don’t see the “assclown” word in the ghostbusters quote.
10
Humbug I apologise for offending you and hope we can return to mature discussion of the issues at hand. I don’t think I could honestly apologise for being an obstinate, obfuscating, evading offensive troll, as I don’t think I am one and even if I am one I don’t have any particular inclination to change. One man’s obstinate, obfuscating, evading offensive troll is another man’s freedom fighter I guess.
p.s. I most certainly did not suggest you have no dick, and sorry I can’t help it if you don’t think it is a funny scene in the movie or how it relates to me calling you what I called you.
10
Just come up with some evidence for this racket will you Matt? I don’t think thats too much to ask.
10
“mature discussion” and MattB the term mutually exclusive comes to mind.
10
@Baa Humbug:
Not sure how you want MattB to behave after the pile-on he just received.
I’m only quoting you(a limited selection). And, he copped alot of abuse from a number of quarters. Most lurkers are here for the science and discussion.
Personally, if I want to read flames wars there are far more entertaining public forums where I can go to read the KIDDIES SHOUTING AT EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
U dun fiNk w3 squorchd da wUn ba 4 UR /bro onda pwned!!!
Getit?
10
MattB, when do you ever learn…. Joanna was claiming the alarmist are being offensive not because they claim they are on offensive, but because they used all the good old ad hom attack as usual, with little to no reference to science. I afraid you have our whole line of reasoning misunderstood.
So does being an offensive troll means being a freedom fighter for the other side? Well I am not disputing this point but all I need to is that, had a racist fascist troll on a human right forum, it seriously don’t make him/her look morally correct for me, regardless whether they are a freedom fighter for fascism or not (or if that even not make a logical contradiction).
MattB I have been observing you for a quite a long time, I always thought you would like to pursue some serious argument and hence a intellectually ethical person. Yet the recent post you made just change my mind and I decided to challenge you in this very special post that perhaps reveal the very nature of your identity.
PS: O and btw, came from Hong Kong (you can tell from my poor English) and I am a supporter of the Communist Chinese government. I have been trolling a lot in the pro-democratic forum. Please call me a freedom fighter as I will be really glad some one will call me with that name.
10
Every one? Take a break. Look – basic science.
Also consider political and social ideology that promotes the UN IPCC agenda with heaps of interested parties including those that have been paid millions to promote their so called AGW hypothesis.
I personally feel and it is my opinion the AGW so called hypothesis is purely those who tried to make a scientifically based point to prove AGW, but forgot to include paleo-climates like the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Mini Ice Age (MIA).
My degree is a BA in Archaeology and Paleoantropology. I studied
this involving paleo-climates and also how climates did change effecting the evolution of Australopithicines, and eventually Homo sapiens.
Greenhouse gases – 95% is water vapor, 4% is CO2 of which 99% is naturally produced. 1% human enhanced. Then consider the promoters of trying to suggest that CO2 emissions OR AGW drive climate change? Bullshit, and beneath this there are people who are making or ARE trying to make monies from CCT’s. IF – as a big CO2 emissions industries, including you and me who drive cars OR USE ELECTRICITY or have farms etc. We will be the ones to pay indirect taxes towards this climate change scam, or so called protecting the planet: Stopping sea levels rises to atolls that are naturally environmentally vulnerable or do not survive sea level rises either through sinking or storms etc. (This is an archeological fact) ETS taxes etc. When the science supports AGW is wrong, wrong, wrong! CO2 emissions do not create disasterous
climate change – or to avoid this we have to be taxed for CO2 emissions and change to nuclear, wind or solar to avoid climate change. When the big CO2 emitters are paying big money to still produce the same CO emissions than before? Even it was true, then
it wouldn’t make a difference to the so called climate changers,
because CO2 doesn’t influence climate change. Period. It does warm the world as part and small percentage of green house gases,
but also cools the world too.
Sad thing is, should we tax CO2 emissions it will not have a bit
of influence on climate or weather! The King Canute hypothesis, eh!
BANGLADESH is below sea level and has been for years. The diversion of the Gandes and Indus Rivers haven’t helped. It will naturally become one of these countries that will eventually suffer sea erosion,LIKE lots of coastal towns around the globe. Until the next ice age begins and sea levels naturally drop? Tides and wave activity does erode beaches. But in Bangladesh they have removed their mangrove areas to make room for so called more agricultural land. These people who live there have little agricultural knowledge, they are subsistence farmers basically
and personally I feel sorry for them – however, according to the UN IPCC draft treaty, we – developed industrialised countries are causing their environmental disasters? This is social/political
and anti capitalism ideology. In slang, trying to make a quick buck!
Co2 emissions DO NOT DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE THEN WHY TAX IT? BECAUSE SOME BASTARD FROM AN UNDEVELOPED COUNTRY THINKS HE/SHE CAN MAKE MONEY VIA A INTERNATIONAL UN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR EXISTENCE IN A DIVOLOPED COMMUNITY! FAIR DINKUM?
Take heart! They are losing. Just look at this editorial from The International Express…page 5 (dated Issue 30 March -5 April under the subtitle of ‘Environment’.
“.MR Darling’s big idea on the environment..a 2 billion [pounds]
GREEN INVESTMENT bank ….was dismissed as nowhere near enough – to clean up the economy?
Engineering consultant WSP Environment & Energy said that according to the Government’s own estimates the bank would provide only a tiny percentage of the money required to move to a low carbon economy. WSP director David Symons said: “The Government estimates it will cost between 324 billion [pounds] and 404 billion [pounds] to deliver a low carbon economy by 2050, and a 2 biilion [pounds]fund therefore provide only O.5% of the total. Britain’s economy can’t sustain this!
Sustainability yes, sure. But no country can sustain their population without a stable and productive agricultural primary industry.
So when we are talking about environmental stability let’s think
about growing good food for starters. And not doing what PETA and the Greens suggest we turn to taxing our poor sheep and cattle
because the methane they emit from the burps and farts create more
global warming than other human activities.
And GM moderated crops from Monstano are EVIL!
10
I’ve apologised, lets move on, I’m happy to have worn Humbug’s point. I don’t expect a counter apology. I do think the audit is a pile of crap and I’m happy to say it (and our leader of the opposition has made it ok to say “pile of crap” in relation to climate debates and not be offensive.)
10
LOL,
They are finally going to make reasoned counterpoints to skeptics points everywhere as part of their effort to convince people that their days of posting smears,name calling and ad homonyms are coming to an end.
What took you AGW believers so long?
(smirk)
10
Matt B: Who are you referring to, mate? You are suggesting the
audit is a pile of crap? Why would people need to have an audit
to start with, you twit! Look – I do realize you have an opinion and philosophy regarding AGW. But it ain’t based on scientific facts but purely social/political/economic manipulation. When you wake up this fact, you will realzse this world is governed not by good people but those who have the power of manipulation ‘in their back pocket’ – that’s were the money is in the wallet. And in this instance it ain’t Heartlands. Much more sinister people like Pachauri of TERI of Europe & India. Al Gore and his involvement and investment in Clean Energy, they are just a few who are pushing the green so called UN IPCC agenda. And it isn’t based on scientific census, just those like Mann, Jones, Hansen, Al Gore, Schneider et all, who just wanted to prove
the planet is getting warmer after the mini ice age. NO IDIOT WOULD DISAPPROVE WITH THIS! We are and still coming and going from this Mini ice age. They excluded this from their equations?
Now simply, I can prove the sea rises in Cairns. The water runs down the streets, obviously indicating sea level rises.
‘…On 27th March 2010, the main street of Cairns was enveloped in
high sea levels, flooding the streets just past the main sea front area by 3 cms…. this have never been recorded in the last
three weeks… must be climate change and sea level rises…:
Actually, MattB, this happens it happens every time there is a King Tide that occurs only during a full moon.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS MATTB!
Some do good things – but right now there are others who do not.
God bless!
10
Bush Bunny I think if you read the thread it is quite clear to what I was responding. It is far less clear what just lead to your rant. My science background and nouse and sense and understanding trumps your pseudo-sustainable farming rubbish any day of the week so I’m happy to discuss with you but don’t lecture me in science sweetheart as you’ve got next to nothing:)
10
sunsettommy: LOL. Mate we aren’t being paid millions to make a point of view, and those that are – well they have contacts, and
they don’t want TO be proved as liars or what you would like to call them. They were paid millions to put up a case to prove global
temps have increased since 1850. They have. They were paid to SUBSTANTIATE the ideology this was caused by AGW. And that to ‘SAVE THE PLANET’ WE HAD TO FORCE INDUSTRIALIzED COUNTRIES TO CUT THEIR CO2 EMISSIONS.
However, Carbon emissions do not cause climate change, so why tax them, eh? Methane emissions from cattle and sheep do not cause
climate change either! Savvy? So Dr Pachauri states in his capacity as chairman of UN IPCC, plus other endorsers like PETA
if we give up eating meat – we will save the planet.
All Bullshit. Since 2006 scientists have been screaming the UN IPCC, the Jones and Mann hockey stick is batting up the wrong tree. They were ignored.
Some who disagreed with this scientific so called research, were
sacked from their jobs etc.
Anyway if you are a student of climates and politics you will realize from where we are coming from.
10
Bushy – who but the greens are going to save you from those evil GM crops?
10
Waffle:
April 19th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
You obviously haven’t been following this which has been going for 2 days now across 2 threads.
Starts at the “The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies” thread.
Anybody and everybody are free to come n go, post or not post at any blog they are welcome at.
As far as “kiddies shouting at each other”, like I said, read thru from the beginning if it interests you.
10
Hi All,
Baa Humbug has it right. I used a word play on the double meaning of “offensive”. (Is it still legal to find jokes in climate science propaganda?) But it wouldn’t be funny if there wasn’t some truth… (or 10 bags full).
It’s not like I haven’t already written a whole category about bullying. The AGW camp, after all, were the ones who invented fully funded smear sites against researchers, and discovered a new subspecies of human called “denier”.
The Skeptics aren’t suggesting publicly coordinated mass emails with the first two recommended steps being a logical error and a smear.
Ad hominem IS offensive.
They do want their readers to be on the offensive about being Offensive. If they wanted them to write science politely with logic and reason, they would have said so.
10
MattB: Your qualifications are not as high as mine, thank you! In fact I doubt you have any qualifications at all, I asked you once and you never replied!!!!
The trouble with you Matt is in my opinion, you are so egotistical
you don’t know when to step back. An metaphore is “FRom the book Godfather’,,, The prime hit man employed, back ended a car, got out and started to rant and rage against the driver of the car he back ended…. he back ended the Commissioner of police of Chicago… You can MattB make sarcastic and innuendos about my ability to try to contain and maintain a reasonable momentum of comments but basically you don’t make any intelligent contributions to this blog. Just trying to insult others for their point of view. If you have any political career intentions
from someone who has been there and knows, you will get no further
than being insulting via the shield of the internet or throwing eggs on someone who you don’t like.
You don’t know who I am, you’d be surprised if you knew! Go to bed MattB, like I am about to do.
10
Go ahead – surprise me. My identity can be found by anyone on this site it is no big secret.
10
MattB: #86
April 19th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
You say..
Here is what you’re defending..
You start your sentence with “assclown”, then go on to give an example from a movie which is about a man with “no dick”.
How else can one interpret that sentence other than to equate “assclown” with “no dick”?
How can you possibly say “I most certainly didn’t suggest…”
That’s exactly what you did, you wrote it, you posted it.
Didn’t I say you don’t know what you’re saying? This is yet another example.
ps I MOST CERTAINLY know the scene from ghostbusters and how funny it is. I OWN A VIDEO SHOP
pps Regards having my “knickers in a knot”, you couldn’t be any further from the truth. A couple of my posts was done with a friend, we had a good laugh about it. My knickers are crisp and clean thankyou very much.
10
It is rather interesting. Here in Canada the smear campaign is already being used to push “renewable energy” — whatever that is. Deniers hate renewable energy etc.
However, when you look at renewable energy there is a little problem. The numbers don’t work. Here is an example…
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/watts-up-with-the-wind-in-ontario-2010/
Somehow the politicians never get the message to check the facts. Incidentally that particular study was passed to all the relevant power organizations who were asked to correct any calculation errors. There were no corrections offered. However one CEO pointed out in a separate interview (not publicized) that the were political organizations that implemented policy — they did not create it. (words to that effect).
If there is global warming — are we following the right mitigation procedure? I think not! Are the hysterical promoters helping? I think not. Hysteria does not help. Science and careful though helps.
10
Open source always works best for those who are discussing the facts, and worst for those who depend on deception. They (the AGW’ers) would be better advised to stick with argument from (eroding) authority, fallacious though it is.
Also, they would be better advised to keep their believers isolated — if they really start mixing it up with skeptics in open discussion, they are going to have a lot of defections.
10
Someone got this list from them (CACC) is UK centric:
April 19, 2010 | E Smith
“I signed up to the email list and posted a troll alert on the Guardian on one of the blogs it listed. I was banned immediately. Creepy George Mobiot is honorary president. I suspect the Guardian is complicit.
Guardian climate change: Volcano shows our lack of sustainability | Anthony Kleanthous
Guardian climate change: Ross Kemp: Reluctant eco-warrior
Daily Mail: Climate change ‘could spark more volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis – Daily Mail
Daily Express: CLEGG SETS OUT £3BN GREEN JOBS PLAN – Express UK
Guardian climate change: Scientists call for research on climate link to geological hazards
Daily Mail: Global water shortage could ’cause food prices to skyrocket and damage the … – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: Third runway at Heathrow ‘will leave UK economy £5billion worse off’ – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: The hard-to-sea life: Stunning pictures of the ‘nonillion’ magical microbes of … – Daily Mail
Daily Express: GLOBAL WATER SHORTAGE TO HIT UK FOOD PRICES – Express UK
Guardian climate change: Science Weekly podcast: Inside the hidden world of pathologists
April 19, 2010 | E Smith
10
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party, South-East) beginning to reveal the Green’s true colours:-
Greens turn sharp left
From the Gruandian
10
Bishop Hill (author: The Hockey Stick Illusions)was kind enough to write up this story for Bishop Hill blog, myself
Thanks again:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html
He also has a very good story about Real Climate being upset with Dr Judith Curry:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/18/judy-gavin-and-me.html
“Judith Curry has set the cat among the pigeons, posting once again at RealClimate. Her points are all rather exciting for me:
there are people making politically motivated attacks against climate research (Marc Morano and Myron Ebell come immediately to mind). And then there are people questioning many aspects of climate research and the IPCC process and making arguments based upon evidence (e.g. Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford(Bishop Hill)).”
10
Hi,
With a general election coming soon, they may feel they are batting
for the wrong side? There is a conservative blog Tori Aardvark
that is hot on the heels of the New Labor. It seems general opinion
is climate change alarmists, are hoping to grab voters.
But if the conservatives win, I think they have no intention of
going to extremes, and if they follow the general trend shown in
Germany and France, that voters who do not agree are now leading
the alarmists. It’s all politics folks.
10
G’Day Ian (post No.3),
I’ve been subscribed to that collective (Campaign Against Climate Change) for some 12 months now, At first I thought like you – someone has to tell these deluded numpties the truth, it is also interesting to get inside the heads of the believers.
I fear however almost all are beyond the grasp of reality, so don’t expect to convince any of them with rational argument. I gave up early.
Among other (amusing if they weren’t so sad) ideas, they enthusiastically endorse limiting Britain’s speed limit to 50mph and banning all domestic air travel, one thread even proposed banning cars except for people who really need them (?) and now they’re crying about how unbalanced the media is in favour of sensible opinion.
There is one stalwart chap going by the pseudonym ‘barelysane’ who gives it his best, but is always inevitably howled down. As far as i can tell this is a group who desire the human race to regress to a medieval lifestyle regardless of the stupidity of it all, although it is always someone else who should make the sacrifices and go without.
At least one of the members has her own private blog in which our Jo is mentioned in dispatches if you care to search – it’s good for a laugh but you can imagine the sort of hot air that infrequently patronised blog has to serve up.
You understand these people are beyond help when you see a sensible response to a demand as demented as trams running down every street in Britain (to eliminate the cars that contribute maybe 0.6% of the annual CO2 additions to atmosphere) or solar-electric airliners, being dismissed with a remark to the affect that all the members of the blog accept that the hot-air affect is undisputed fact so please Mr. Denier, stop being so nasty telling them their belief is wrong and go away. Or some 19year old arts student starts bleating incessantly that you should go for re-education on realclimate.com…
Don’t waste your time trying to resuscitate the terminally ill; better to focus your attention on everyday science illiterates who just accept this myth because they heard it on the telly a few hundred times. Or spend your time in the blogosphere submitting comments to environmental journalist’s articles – a good example being Richard black on the BBC – at least you’ll have some open minded people reading your comments. If they’re published.
10
Mondays List(26/04/2010
Guardian climate change: Video: Monbiot confronts ‘climate ministers’ on fossil fuels
Guardian climate change: Ed Miliband on trying to stay green
Guardian climate change: Simon Hughes on trying to stay green
Guardian climate change: Election 2010: Climate debates live
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Nutters, Nick Clegg? They’re closer than you think – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Glimpse into the mire of a hung parliament – Daily Mail
Guardian climate change: Letters: Day for the climate change question
Guardian climate change: Science Weekly podcast: Brain scans in the theatre; volcanic ash in jet engines
Daily Mail: Peter McKay: Plotting the great stitch-up – Daily Mail
Daily Express: CLEGG VOWS TO FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENT – Express.co.uk
Sundays Lists (25/04/2010)
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference … – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: The ash cloud that never was: How volcanic plume over UK was only a twentieth … – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The elementary fault in Labour’s quangocracy – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: General Election 2010: Are TV viewers really too stupid to spot the difference … – Daily Mail
Daily Mail: Every night the BBC lectures us on climate change. So why did their bosses … – Daily Mail
Christopher Booker: Volcano crisis: Sense vanishes in a puff of ash
Christopher Booker: It’s a pity we can’t vote out our real rulers
Christopher Booker: Unforgivable persecution of the Bushmen
the Campaign Against Climate Change lists among its leadership George Monbiot (Guardian), Michael Meacher (Lab MP), Norman Baker (Lib dem MP), Caroline Lucas (Green Leader, MEP) and Jean Lambert (Green MEP). How more establishment can this manmade climate change lobbying group be? One is even a former Minister of State for the Environment!
This organisation is doing nothing wrong or illegal but, on reflection, this is yet another lobby group trying to manipulate the general public with the tools of political spin and misdirection. It is frustrating to think that even the comments sections of newspapers and websites are being spun by activists from manmade climate change pressure groups, without the general public ever being aware of this manipulation.
10
Gee are the dates all wrong here. Anyway, it would seem our independent MP has said, setting a carbon tax
is inevitable. We have to move forward.
Election on August 21st, and I hope ALP get scared
but I think with all the trillions in carbon trading and
clean energy, they are afraid to tell the truth.
After all we don’t want all those AGW claimers losing their jobs, pension funds going South, and Allie Gore and his mate Pachauri end up with eggs on the faces and losing millions or billions. That’s what is all about folks, $$$$’s and Carbon investors. They invested because they believed frauds, and the frauds
are afraid they may be held up to account for the lies
and the fact these people have lost money.
10
I’m late to this party (by about 9 months!), but I just had to see what MattB thought he could contribute to a discussion at WUWT:
Matt: You have vastly underestimated the intelligence of the average commenter at WUWT (or, perhaps, vastly overestimated your own intelligence).
Just because you don’t understand what they’re talking about (e.g., “Does the precipitation trend have a unit root?”) doesn’t mean that you are smarter than they.
Your comment was concisely summed up by F. Ross:
It’s actually entertaining to look at MattB’s contributions to WUWT (Google search). Commenters there treat him like an impulsive child who is kind of slow upstairs, but probably teachable:
10