JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Blog Warfare — Warmist attacks their own

Then today Richard Black of the BBC finds out how ugly it can be when you make the mistake (the travesty!) of missing a chance to tell everyone that the Earth’s falling apart due to Man-made Global Warming.

It’s the first time Richard Black has been on the receiving end. He’s a bit put out.

It seems that something new, and not altogether welcome, may be happening in the politicking over climate change.

I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change – “sceptics”, “deniers”, as you wish.

This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents.

Joe Romm, the physicist-cum-government-advisor-cum-polemicist, posted a blog entry highly critical of the Arctic ice article I wrote last week.

Joe Romm took him to task for doing a story on the hottest year without “mentioning the primary cause of global warming” (according to climate models which are known to be wrong). Romm set lots of emailers onto Black. The original “dreadful” story is just reporting how arctic ice melted fast, but didn’t shrink as much as 2007.

Then you can see the cogs turning in Black’s mind with the implications:

What about scientists? If researchers publish papers on climate change that do not include cataclysmic warnings of where the world is heading, will they receive the same treatment?

Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.

If Richard Black would like the debate to be less polarized and more scientific he could start by getting over his own noxious use of the derogatory term “denier”.

This is good news for skeptics.

Why, because when bullies do what bullies do, they bite back at their own. For people like Judith Curry and Richard Black, suddenly the depth of the vicious campaign becomes clear, and unless they have a religious belief in man-made global warming, this is the point when they start to wonder just how strong the scientific case is. I’ve written before about how the bullying creates only brittle support, working only until the tactic is exposed for all to see, and how it helps convert passive borderline skeptics into active trumpeting dissenters.

There is a serious slogging going on in the comments, and it’s interesting to watch.

Romm’s attack on Black

Black’s response

Romm’s reply.

The once cohesive block of the believers in the Big Scare Campaign fragments a bit further. Piece by piece proponents will distance themselves from the unscientific advocacy until all that are left are the religious believers who won’t be swayed by any amount of reason.

Bishop Hill points out that there’s a BBC science review running at the moment, and wonders if that has had any effect on Richard Black’s reporting. The BBC review is starting from a point 10-steps-to-the-left of impartial: Both quacks and climate deniers rarely have anything to say that is real science. That’s right, even if you have a Nobel Physics Prize, a BBC editor can group you with “quacks” and ignore everything you say.

————————————-

Mailmannz writes in the BBC comments:

Richard,

It beggars belief that you, who works for an organisation with nearly a £4 BILLION budget, has only now just noticed the toxic levels of hatred and spite spat out by those who believe in Mann Made Global Warming ™?

Then again, when you are on the inside looking out, I guess it does get a little hard to see what really is going on around you.

You know, I’m wondering why you, Harribin et al HAVEN’T interviewed someone as important to the MMGW debate as Mr McIntyre? Could it be because that would be the wrong kind of thing to do for those who have so heavily invested their time, effort and…cough…money in MMGW?

Why is the BBC so incredibly incurious about McIntyre’s story? How for years Mann has refused to release the data he used to construct his now discredited hockey stick? Why is that Richard? Why so incurious?

What I did notice after McIntyres recent visit and speeches in the UK a couple months back was that a lot of the “warmistas” were surprised at just how articulate McIntyre is. When they saw and heard the man for the first time they suddenly realised he wasnt the cook and anti-christ the vindictive mann made global warming followers had smeared him as being.

Thanks to Barry W for the heads up.

Barry writes astutely in the comments on the BBC:

.Most recently Professor Judith Curry, who is a ‘consensus’ respected scientist, who has been roundly abused by the Pro Agw blogs, like Real Climate, Deltoid, DeSmogBlog and many others.  On her new blog she talks about doubt, she also agrees that AGW is still at the Hypothesis stage.

Judith, then has been roundly ‘abused’, judgement questioned, merely for talking to ‘sceptics.’ For an example, from another RealClimate founder) William Connolley, who wrote, ‘Judith Curry Jumps the Shark’ on his blog Stoat, and then watched all the commentors pile in..

Judith Curry (from her CV, google it for all her scientific honours)

Professional Experience
2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder,
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor,
Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor,
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist,
Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

And the BBC wonder why many ‘sceptical scientists’ have not spoken up, the BBC have been part of the media climate that has allowed this.

Why might you think that the ‘sceptics’ perceive the BBC to be anything but cheerleaders for the ‘consensus’.

BTW: It’s been a busy week in the blogs. If you want evidence that comments do matter, follow the Bishop Hill and Monbiot tango. (Monbiot asked for evidence of Pachauri’s bad bookkeeping (among other things), and readers on Bishop Hill provided documented examples for Monboit on his blog, but then those comments, and Monboits question were all deleted… (Monbiot points out it was Guardian staff doing the deleting due to libel laws and not himself). Lets all cheer for free speech.

The UK Charity Commission made available TERI-Europe’s published and revised accounts.  (TERI-Europe is a charity run by Dr Pachauri from a suburban house in South London. )

… In the period shown, only 15% of their income had been put through the charity’s accounts and 85% of TERI-Europe’s income had simply not been included in their declared income.

Monboit did not mention in his reply whether it bothered him that Pachauri had massively under-reported his charity’s income.

See all my posts tagged: Bullying

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Blog Warfare -- Warmist attacks their own, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2aelu5d

43 comments to Blog Warfare — Warmist attacks their own

  • #
    John from CA

    I noticed you have a broken link to the Wegman Report in your blogs. Here’s a current link.

    WEGMAN REPORT:
    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION

    To Read the Report: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

    “This report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Salute this man! Pachauri did what no climate sceptic is able to do. A Trojan Horse that destroyed the IPCC from the inside.

    If Pachauri did not exist, we climate sceptics would have had to literally invent him. He is in fact every sceptic’s dream. How could we have asked for more when he embodies the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all completeness? Interestingly, he also strongly epitomizes the typical climate activist and their organizations that they are attached. Did he mould both in his image or its vice versa is however for history to judge.

    Next month 194 governments of the IPCC are scheduled to meet in Busan, South Korea. This is where a plot to ouster Pachuari could be unleashed. Pachuari remains defiant: “At the moment, my mandate is very clear. I have to complete the fifth assessment” The Indian Government who Pachuari is their candidate is equally defiant, backing him to the hilt. If Pachauri goes, we leave the IPCC! And if India leaves the IPCC, it can trigger an exodus.

    Read More: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/salute-this-man-pachauri-did-what-no.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Rajan Alexander,

    Pachauri, the IPCC, and all the camp followers are at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. It can appear for a time that the battle is succeeding. That happens only as long as there are willing victims to be sacrificed and available wealth to be consumed. Our challenge is not to be victims as the war progresses to its inevitable conclusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gore won the war?
    Where did that come from? Guy’s a loser.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ThomasJ

    Great post, Joanne! I’ve linked it to your excellent Swedish partner’s site:
    http://www.theclimatescam.se [Swedish language though]

    Brgds from the Bestcoast of Sweden!
    //TJ


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Joe Romm is a very nasty person. He will attack even his side and will try to get people fired.
    Joe Romm is funded by George Sorss. Soros is a convicted felon billionaire that is trying to run the planet. Romm is famous for banning posters on climateprogress.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    So if Pachauri is pushed, for a catalogue of good reasons,
    his country will pull out of the IPCC, along with sympathetic
    neighbour countries.
    This is all about science. Honest. As true as Pachauri is a
    climate scientist himself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Jeez they get into it over there don’t they? Do you get that sort of stuff Jo? Well done Jo. The next year or so should be interesting viewing!
    Ken


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It appears that the Treasury officials now consider themselves climate scientists as well:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/warning-get-ready-to-pay-for-carbon-20100924-15qkq.html

    To quote:

    “AUSTRALIANS have paid a ”high price” for the emissions trading scheme delay and the Gillard government should establish a carbon market as soon as possible, according to blunt advice from the federal Treasury in the normally top-secret ”red book” prepared for an incoming Labor administration.”

    I can only assume that the “high price” we have paid for a delay in an emissions trading scheme is about the impact on the environment, yes? Surely they don’t mean the high financial price of not garnishing taxes from industry and balancing the budget…

    Surely it isn’t just about the money?

    (Yes this post may have elements of sarcasm, but I am sure most of you picked that up).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    What this does demonstrate is that an issue that should be about facts has become sidetracked by rather childish name-calling.
    A major reason for this is the uncertainty that surrounds the climate science/statistics/modelling that is used by the various name-callers to support their opinions.

    Clearly the climate science/statistics/modelling is too complex to be readily understood by the majority of commenters. Even the oft-quoted Garnaut admits he took the climate science at face value when preparing his report on economic consequences of carbon pricing. It is not too much of a stretch to see that his and similar reports have resulted in a stagnation of energy industry investment which will lead to energy shortages and contribute to high prices in the medium term.

    This discussion must get back to the basics..the physics and chemistry of the interaction between atmospheric CO2 and the Earth’s infrared radiation emissions. This is not necessarily the comfortable domain of climate scientists,statisticians or computer modellers. An injection of some “outside the box” thinking is one possibility for getting out of the current name-calling debacle.

    An understanding of these processes would clarify the role of CO2 and provide a factual basis for further action and policy. As most visitors to this site already know the ACSC site can be accessed from this site. The Chairman of the ACSC scientific panel Dr John Nicol has tackled the basics of atmospheric CO2. His analysis is easily accessed on the web.

    My challenge to all and sundry is to stress test Dr Nicol’s analysis. Once we properly understand CO2 then we can move forward on a basis of fact as opposed to name-calling driven by fear-mongering.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Black has committed a single act of defiance against The Organization, and that’s all it takes to be completely purged. You can’t ever rejoin the CAGW movement, not even if you openly confess your crimes.

    He and his family can expect to be sent to work in the fields on starvation rations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Perhaps Monbiot could comment on money recieved by TERI based on the melting glaciers claims…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Bulldust

    It looks like the “Aust. Team” are lining all “ducks in row” to steam roll an ETS or Carbon Tax through despite Ms Gillard’s campaign words ( oh, I almost forgot her 11th hr slip into the press the day before your elections !!).
    But as well your the Treasury comments in your link I see on the news a hour ago that Flannery has put out a new book and Klopper’s comments the other day ( I wonder what the BHP Board would think of them being written up on this site :
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/carb-s22.shtml ).
    The fascinating thing is that the rest of the world ( except us dumb Kiwis ) are going the other way –even if it is very ,very slowly in some cases.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    EU, major financiers for warming science.
    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-eu-connection-in-climate-research#more-2702

    The leaking of the East Anglia “Climategate” e-mails and data last November shattered the appearance of a scientific consensus on supposed “man-made global warming” and provided a disturbing insight into the corruption of the scientific process as it relates to the “man-made global warming” hypothesis. The spectacle of scientists stonewalling freedom of information requests, destroying records, hiding unwelcome results, colluding to keep dissenting viewpoints out of scholarly journals, and even suppressing their own acknowledged doubts — all of this made it perfectly clear that other interests were at stake than the pure pursuit of knowledge. The centrality of the quest for funding in the e-mail exchanges made it equally clear that for the scientists in question, money, unsurprisingly, was first and foremost among those interests.

    But just who or what had corrupted the science in order to produce the phantom “consensus”? Commentators in U.S. online discussion forums and blogs wasted no time in identifying two prime suspects: the reputed prophet of green energy, Al Gore, and the right’s least favorite leftist billionaire, George Soros. Such speculation said a lot about the top bogeymen in the conservative blogosphere, but it was prima facie implausible or even indeed absurd. After all, no single individual, no matter how wealthy, has the resources that it takes to politicize weather and corrupt the entire global scientific enterprise. Indeed, in the grand scheme of things, one of the named suspects is not even particularly wealthy. Despite the prominent role he has played as a spokesperson for climate alarmism, it is far more likely that the former vice president is a passenger on the global warming bandwagon, not a driver.

    If no individual has the money it takes, states — especially if they pool their resources — most certainly do. The real culprit in the corruption of the scientific process and the promotion of climate alarmism is named again and again in the East Anglia e-mails and documents. But the culprit is named with many different names, mysterious combinations of letters and numbers and lyrical code words, names like “dgxii, dgxi fp5 fp6 fp7 life enrich.” What do they mean? In the final analysis, it is but one and the same multinational organization that lurks behind all these designations: the European Union.

    While on the EU, things may be warming up between the US & the EU.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

    On the one side, the US Republican party which – after years of despicable RINO-ism – appears finally to have understood that the only proper conservative position on “Man-Made Global Warming” is one of robust scepticism. Not only do we learn from a predictably appalled Guardian that all bar one of the Republicans’ 48 mid-term election candidates are card-carrying sceptics, but almost better still, we have senior Republican Darrell Issa promising a “careful look” at “climate science” post-Climategate.
    House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is promising to give a “careful relook” at climate change science in the wake of last year’s “Climategate” scandal if Republicans take over the House.

    On the other side, we have the Enviro Nazis of the European Union who, regardless of what the real world evidence or the science actually says, are determined to go on fighting their lost green cause to the bitter end. Their latest scheme? To try to impose a flight ban on the airlines of any countries which fail to observe its strictures on CO2 emissions: (H/T Nick Mabbs)

    Foreign airlines are threatened with a flight and landing ban from 2012 in the European Union if they do not participate in emissions trading.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eric Anderson

    “This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents.”

    Been pretty blind up until now, huh, Richard? It is amazing how oblivious some can be . . .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Great post. It certainly seems likely that AGW alarmism is not a single global conspiracy but a coincidence of convenience between many groups including left wing environmental activists, population control enthusiasts, scientists who are seduced by the funding gravy train, financial markets keen for another commodity to trade, Governments and government departments who see an opportunity to increase social control and tax revenues, European countries which see a price on carbon emissions as a means to level the playing fields against countries endowed with natural resources, developing countries keen to shackle developed countries while leaving their own industries free to attract production from stymied western economies and of course despotic, inefficient or simply backward countries which see an opportunity to share in the billions to be provided by developed countries as some form of compensation for past emissions. Oh and I suppose there may actually be a few true believers who want to save the world who are being misled by the consortium of vested interest groups.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Because Richard Black seemed unaware, ‘in his experience’ of similar ‘warmist’ (his word)abuse to sceptics, I sent it to JO, who might be able to advise him, if he gives her a call.

    If the BBC are watching… in my email to Jo…

    Please PRAISE the BBC moderatorsMy long comment 59# was removed for consideration, presumably after ‘complaints’
    The BBC moderators PUT IT BACK.. (just doing their job)

    I have NEVER had any problems to speak of really, that was not resolved with the BBC mods. Please praise the BBC mods, and Richard Black for tolerating me for many months.”

    I am on a one man mission to try and engage the BBC, and politely try to reason and explain the message.. Dear old great auntie BBC, ‘believes’ and keeps going back to listen to the ‘snake oil salesmen’ of the CAGW delusion. despite BBC’s family saying its just a delusion, BB believes and has not been listening. (ok, just being over the top funny, to make a serious point)

    They are not bad people, in fact the opposite, they fully believed…

    Why not, 20-30 years of lobbying bythe AGW IPCC industry, cheife scientists, Royal Institutions, UN, IPCC, all those eco lobby groups, it will have been relentless….

    I have a lot of time for Roger Harraboin, who wrote this, and is mind is open whilst thinking can the IPCC really be completely wrong (look at working group 1, those sceintists are NOT wrong, just what happens in the summaries, and the other working groups, is where it goes wrong)…

    BBC – Roger Harrabin: The Heat and Light in Global Warming

    “I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change, but when I first watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth I felt a flutter of unease.”

    “…but because in several points of the film, Mr Gore simply goes too far by asserting or implying facts that are contentious.

    “Because although Mr Justice Burton agreed in Wednesday’s High Court ruling that An Inconvenient Truth is mainly based on consensus science, his judgement will be trumpeted more for finding that the film was studded with green “errors”. ”

    My thoughts:
    Most worringly, if Al Gore and his advocates can behave like this to an onside, passionately ‘warmist BBC, and an acredited (ie protected) journalist like Roger, how would the rest of the warmist behave to sceptics.. (ie a member of the public, sceptical journalists/scientists)

    Roger Harrabin BBC:

    “And after the interview he [Al Gore]and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

    I imagine, the BBC will have been treated with kid gloves in the past…

    Now as the politicians maainly because of the finacial crisis hold back, the lobby groups will not change tactics they will try more of the same. That worked in the past, pressure, abuse, Romm style attacks…

    Yet, the MSM will start/have started to take notice, and push back a bit, as the ‘poltical/social’ peer pressure has weakened.

    Interesting times… the ‘warmists’ (ie the extreme minority of CAGW groups, will get nastier, as things slip away from them)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Bob Malloy: #14
    September 25th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    On the other side, we have the Enviro Nazis of the European Union who, regardless of what the real world evidence or the science actually says, are determined to go on fighting their lost green cause to the bitter end. Their latest scheme? To try to impose a flight ban on the airlines of any countries which fail to observe its strictures on CO2 emissions: (H/T Nick Mabbs)

    Foreign airlines are threatened with a flight and landing ban from 2012 in the European Union if they do not participate in emissions trading.

    Yeesss the good old European Union.
    Have a look at the 20th century (and before), most of the worlds ills came out of Europe.
    Now they have the gaul to dictate to the rest of the world “what’s good for us”.
    So they’re going to ban airlines from countries who don’t have ETS schemes? Good luck trying that with China Russia and India.

    Lets hope the pea-brains in the current Aust. Govt. don’t fall for it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug:
    September 25th, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    Lets hope the pea-brains in the current Aust. Govt. don’t fall for it

    Your far too flattering about the current AUST.GOV. Collectively they would have trouble finding a pea to share as a brain.
    To make it worse Combet is my local member and is sticking to the same old mantra as Wong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    The BBC will of course allow Jo Nova to comment on Richard Black’s blog…..

    So may I invite her to do so, as politely as rationally as most of the sceptic bloggers are…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments

    I would suggest that NOBODY else reading the comments here, make a comment, just JO, lest we be accused of sending the cavalry in. But of course anyone is free to do what they want, I can’t stop them, but allways politely. Or maybe she does it privately, in th espirit of trying to engage ( I like the BBC, it is MY BBC, lets us try to talk, thgey have just heard whispered and shouted abuse, about sceptics)

    If Jo could describe her experience in Aus of ‘warmist’ abuse and intolerance, I am sure it will be fascinating to the BBC. Who appear to be waking up from inside the protective green bubble that the warmists have entombed the BBC in. THe BBC may have the dim view of what has been happening outside…

    BBC – Roger Harrabin (2007): The Heat and Light in Global Warming

    “I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change, but when I first watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth I felt a flutter of unease.”
    “…but because in several points of the film, Mr Gore simply goes too far by asserting or implying facts that are contentious….”

    “…..Because although Mr Justice Burton agreed in Wednesday’s High Court ruling that An Inconvenient Truth is mainly based on consensus science, his judgement will be trumpeted more for finding that the film was studded with green “errors”…….”

    My thoughts:
    Most worringly, if Al Gore and his advocates can behave like this to an onside, passionately ‘warmist BBC, and an acredited (ie protected) journalist like Roger, how would the rest of the warmist behave to sceptics.. (ie a member of the public, sceptical journalists/scientists)

    Roger Harrabin BBC (2007):

    “And after the interview he [Al Gore]and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    I have NOTHING BUT PRAISE for the BBC Moderators..(I don’t have blog myself, so I hang arounfd Bishop Hill and the BBC)

    Can anyone imagine, RealClimate, Deltoid, Climate Progrees The Guardain, allowing highly critical (non-abusive) comments like my own…

    The BBC is full of intelligent creative people that have perhaps just been caught up in the CAGW delusion, shouting at them will not change their minds but engageing them.. They have the intellectual honsty to think about asking some questions, perhaps…

    Would this be allowed anywhere else.
    ——————————————
    Richard Black blog:
    218. At 3:25pm on 25 Sep 2010, you wrote:

    Like Richard Black – Jo Nova has her email address on her website/blog..

    So I emailed her a link to this article as I’m very aware of the abuse she has receveived from ‘warmists’ all the way up to establishmnet political figure..

    ‘Warmist’ intolerance, is not a surprise ‘in her experience’ I know for sure.

    I found out about Jo Nova, as I was curious when Richard Black refered to a couple of female australian blogger, as I’ve relatives in Aus… (without actually saying who – my perception of probably ‘subconcious’ BBC media gatekeeping again – best not say the name, lest the puiblic go and read what she says, and become all sceptical?)

    Following his infamous article: (take a look at the comments)

    Richard Black BBC:
    COP15: Climate ‘scepticism’ and questions about sex
    Why are virtually all climate “sceptics” men?

    “..The other is that climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads “climate hell”.

    As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: “I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their CHILDHOOD”.

    Thus Richard carefully perhaps?, not say it himself, but includes it and leaves the idea hanging there. Thus climate sceptics are deniars/sceptics because of damaged childhood, another attempt at negative labels, to discourage people to be associated with climate sceptics..

    ……. of course, the proponents of catastrophic AGW could equally be identified as ALL men ! ;) ……………..

    Richard listed a few men – Like “TV PRESENTER David Bellamy”…..

    Why NOT list his scientific qualifications – NOT trying to support the CAGW media consensus, that only non-scientists are sceptics/denairs?

    (again my perception of sub concious bias)

    DR David Bellamy, OBE (they give out OBE’s to denairs? he should be stripped of, right away, surely)

    ————————–
    Professor David J. Bellamy OBE. BSc., PhD., Hon:- FLS,. FIBiol., DSc., DUniv., FIBiol., FCIWEM Hon (born 1933) is an English professor, botanist, author, broadcaster and environmental campaigner.

    He attended Sutton County Grammar School, Sutton, Chelsea College of Science and Technology and Bedford College, all in London.

    He was brought up as a strict Baptist.

    Bellamy and his wife Rosemary, whom he maried when he was 19, have five children – four are adopted.

    He originally trained as a botanist at Durham University, where he later held the post of senior lecturer in botany until 1982. He is still their Honorary Preofessor for Adult and Continuing Education.

    He first came to public prominence as an envoironmental consultant at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster.

    In 1983, he was JAILED for blockading the Franklin River in protest at a proposed dam.

    He has been the writer and presenter of some 400 television programmes on Botany, Ecology and Environment.”
    ——

    Dr David Bellamy was campaigning and being JAILED for the environment and conservation, whilst Richard Black (and George Monbiot)was probably a toddler..
    He was campaigning, whilst there was a Big businees vested interest against, environmentalism..

    But because of his views of AGW and man amde global warming, George Monbiot (Guardian), has him in a deniars Hall of Shame. The BBC’s Richard Black refer to his as a ‘TV Presenter’. Lest the public be aware that at least ONE ‘scientist’ is against Catastrophic AGW.

    All his environmental/conservation acheivments ignored/forgotten, unlauded, because he wil not submit to the ‘consensus’

    Whether he is right or wrong on AGW, (he may not come across as well in hostile debates with George Monbiot, he perhaps was far too polite), that is moot, the point is the ‘consensus’ demands that deniars are ‘anti-science’.

    Even to the point where DR Judith Curry is now being dismissed by the usual pundits as ‘failing’ as a scientist…..

    Roger Harrabin had his Al Gore moment: (3 years ago)

    “And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

    Jo Nova, mentions another scientists experience at the hands of Al Gore:

    “Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.”
    At the time Al Gore was a US Senator – to become Vice -President of the USA in 1993…..

    Yet Roger Harrabin a while back, ask sceptoical bloggers for a list of sceptical scientists. Well, perhaps they were still keeping there heads down.

    Maybe Richard should give Jo Nova a call and investigate whether ‘warmists’ have behaved like this for a long time, he implies not, ‘in his experience’ ( I take that as, ‘plausable deniability’ )

    Whilst perhaps considering, whether his ‘style’ of writing described above, has sub-conciously been part of the ‘consens’ message to try and stop people daring to be alligned/labbelled a sceptic.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/blog-warfare-warmist-attacks-their-own/comment-page-1/#comment-93115

    end BBC comment ————–

    I commented a while ago, what is the point of sceptics posting on sceptics blogs, and AGW advocates on AGW advocay blogs, why not try debating on all blogs (OK the fact that many pro AGW blogs, will delete you out of hand for being off message, has not helped on this… But some will allow all comments. Visit, be extra polite, don’t rise to the bate of the usual CAGW regulars, and possibly people that read, but don’t usualy comment, may join in, in support.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Actually, put 21 on hold…

    Lots of people have been removed for further comnsideration at the BBC. – maybe more complaints. (the mods, have to do there job, I guess, happened before, and put back)

    See what happens tommorrow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can smile while they eat each other for lunch.

    As for the EU and a landing ban, they’ll soon realize how much money those international flights are worth to them. It will hurt, but they will hurt also. By then we may well have a president and a congress worth talking about and I daresay reciprocity is a very good policy.

    We seem destined to have this confrontation one way or another. Perhaps the sooner the better!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I tried to post a message on Black’s blog which explained how most of this Arctic melting episode was concentrated on the Alaska side as warmer waters encroached and that the compensating reaction was to send cold water down the Pacific coast, where places like San Jose, CA has experienced it’s second coldest summer ever. It went in to the moderating queue and never came out. I suspect that it made too much sense. RealClimate won’t even let me in the moderating queue and I suspect that Gavin blocked my IP’s at the firewall. I’ve never been abusive on any of these sites, have always been polite and have only presented arguments supported by science. Occasionally I will point out the silliness in the relevant CAGW argument (there’s just so much to choose from), but it’s always a relevant point. There’s a small number of warmist blogs that will let you post, but most are moderated by default, rather than open by default like most skeptic blogs seem to be. Posting through a moderated queue is a pain, there’s no way of knowing if and when it will get through and any kind of real time interaction is precluded. While most warmists are not warmly received by many who contribute to skeptic blogs, the reaction of a warmist to a skeptic posting on their ‘home turf’ borders on psychotic. Have you ever tried to take a bone away from a Pit Bull? It’s like that. If you don’t respond to the taunts, they will eventually go away, although to keep them otherwise engaged and listening, you need to tug on the bone every once and a while to keep their attention.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Over at the “climateprogress” website of fantasies
    Robert says:
    September 24, 2010 at 8:42 am
    World’s largest offshore wind farm – in Britain
    will produce power for 200,000 homes.
    ……..

    I was compelled to retort …

    HAHAHAHAHA

    Fantasy World !

    The UK Governments own figures show that the “largest ONSHORE windfarm”
    near East Kilbride in Scotland, produced just 17% of the stated rating last year. This was almost 50% less than their own estimate of 32% for windfarm production NATIONWIDE. So then the UK Government actually only believes that those windfarms built in the UK so far are only capable at the best of times of producing A THIRD of what the owners of those farms actually claim, and on which grant moneys are based.

    Bah Humbug, this is nothing less than a criminal fraud being perpetrated on the UK Taxpayer. Do you all really want to be paying 70 pence a unit for electricity in your homes ? Because that is what National Grid pays as a feed in tariff to these crooks and wind swindlers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    The People of Meridth New York love their windfarms! Not
    http://enviralment.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/required-viewing-new-doc-windfall-by-laura-israel/

    Windfall is filmmaker Laura Israel’s look at how a small Upstate New York town is nearly torn apart over a proposed wind farm development. The film is not an exposé on the wind power industry, but rather an examination of the effects wind farms can have on small communities around the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    World of Reality # 25.

    I posted this quote on an earlier thread , from Jame’s Lovelock’s new book. It reinforces your comments

    “Used sensibly, in locations where the fickle nature of wind is no drawback, it is a valuable local resource, but Europe’s massive use of wind as a supplement to baseload electricity will probably be remembered as one of the great follies of the twenty-first century … ,”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Black’s closing lines bear listening to: “As I have asked before in relation to pressure from the “sceptical” camp, what makes anyone think that organised abuse is an effective lobbying tactic?

    “Rather, it takes us further down the spiral of confrontation, where no-one listens to anyone with an opposing point of view, where every word has to be weighed for ideological purity rather than accuracy, and where free and effective discourse becomes impossible.”

    An excellent example for us all has been Bishop Hill. Whlle encouraging readers to weigh in on a few things, he has consistently urged civil, rational discourse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    The distracted, the uninformed and unaware, the intellectually lazy, the politically and scientifically naïve; those who do not have access to the real evidence and have been successfully brainwashed by the politicised green movement via the MSM (in other words,the majority of the population), will have difficulty comprehending the monumental AGW fraud.

    I believe that the sceptic community needs media and marketing efforts on an unprecedented scale to broadcast the scientific truths that are not yet understood by this ‘slowly boiling frog’ population. Agreement amongst sceptics is unfortunately not good enough, even though it is having some impact within the scientific community. The wider community is still in the dark, and they are the ones to be reached.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Tim,

    You have it exactly right. Unfortunately now we need to answer the question, “How do we accomplish it?”

    Please don’t think I’m attacking you. I’m not. But my own experience is not very encouraging. I’ve tried to interest several talk radio hosts (here in the U.S.) in interviewing Joanne on the air. The potential audience is in the millions so it would get out a basic skeptic message in a very worthwhile way. Needless to say, even though they talk about global warming as a fraud when they mention it, not one has even responded to my email much less contacted Jo to see what she might say if interviewed.

    We need a rich uncle to die and leave us millions with which to mount an advertising campaign. Or maybe a rich skeptic will show up!?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    I can confirm Barry’s impression of the BBC. I love to make, say, critical comments on their “Green Room” agitprop article series (and i love the “Green Room”, often it is such pure undiluted madness, and i do have a penchant for mad schemes.) and they come through.

    One time i commented there “If i’ve ever seen a propaganda piece it’s this” and the comment appeared!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Saw the pompous sounding David Attenborough pontificating about the waste developed nations create c.f. poorer nations. He used a graphic that distorts the size of the world atlas by energy usage to per capita. As to be expected USA was gargantuan in size followed by Japan, Europe with China about the size it looks now. Africa, India and S America looked smaller. He used a similar graphic for other ‘nasty’ things humans do. But Australia, at no stage, was even mentioned. It was there on the map but did not alter in size. Either Australia is doing everything right or, more likely, does not rate a mention. Our 1% emissions don’t amount to much at all. As Keith De-Lacey, former head of QLD Treasury and now a CEO in the coal industry said today, Australia is up itself if it thinks the world thinks about us. We will, he said, be paying perhaps 4 times what we now pay for electricity with jobs being lost because of the cost. And even if we stopped selling coal the global CO2 emissions will get worse. Why? Because Indonesian coal, e.g. is dirtier. It takes 1.5 tonnes of Indonesian coal to burn to equal 1 tonne of Australian coal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    John Smith

    @33

    This could be a turning point for the sceptics. Its interesting that the Bilderberg group has shifted its focus from Global Warming to Global Cooling. Can anyone enlighten me here please?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kingkp

    absolutely hilarious to see. People like Black and Monbiot will one day pay a heavy price for their ignorance. My strategy of dealing with such f***wits is to simply mention Richard Feynman and his famous Caltech address – the cargo cult masterpiece. There really isn’t a come back on that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mailmannz

    Barry Woods,

    You sir were on fire in Blacks blog. Somehow I suspect he was not prepared for your thoughtful contribution! Bloody good point about people like Bellamy, who I grew up with as a child (him and Magnus Pyke) and how he and the other alarmists at the BBC etc have delegitimized him by making him a non-entity, as you point out so succinctly! If Black was half the reporter we hope him to be, he would have read your contributions in detail and taken note. Sadly, I think he will just gloss over the entry’s and pretty much ignore everything you have said…although he can prove me wrong if he likes!

    BUT, still, the alarmists continue to project their insecurities on those who are skeptical of Mann Made Global Warming ™, I mean you can see that right in the title of his article!

    One of the other things that comes through in buckets full is just how quickly his blog descends in to ugliness. Both his and Harribins blogs are nearly unreadable because of the religious zealotry the alarmists display. Yet strangely enough Paul Hudsons blog remains for the most part free of the abuse of these other two blogs. Secondly, Blacks blog mimics the blogs of the hard core alarmists like real climate and the Guardian et al, where those who arent on song are regularly censored.

    To me, the difference between those who are skeptical of Mann Made Global Warming and alarmists is that those who are skeptical are prepared to listen and gather as much information as possible while those who are believers have closed minds and want to control everything so that their message isn’t diluted or lost.

    Oh, the other thing that stands out about alarmists is there lack of a sense of humour! :)

    Regards

    Mailman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rich

    Anybody follow the link to the list of attendees?
    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2010.html

    Henry Kissinger. Eric Schmidt CEO of Google. Peter Sachs CEO Goldman Sachs. George David, Chairman Coca Cola. Bill Gates. The Queens of the Netherlands and Spain.

    Who caught your eye? It’s just the great and the good caring about us little people, right?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil: #24
    September 26th, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Have you ever tried to take a bone away from a Pit Bull?

    Now, now George, let’s not go maligning poor innocent Pit Bulls. I take bones away from my Pit all the time. Like us skeptics, they have an undeserved image/reputation that was fashioned by media know-nothings. ;-)

    Still, your point is well-taken. I too was banned long ago from “Real Climate” and at the time all I was doing was asking a lot of uncomfortable questions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Actually Mailman – I sent Richard a copy of my post (below)at Climate Progrees, – IN DEFENCE of the BBC and Richard Black. I had a very nice email back thanking me….

    As the BBC welcome all comments ….
    Climate Progress of course DELETED it….
    it would not accept a ‘sceptic’.. defending the BBC/Richard Black.

    ———

    I made a repsonse to someone called mapleleaf, at Climate Progress.

    ‘MapleLeaf, also alerted the commentors at Climate progress (comment 27#), to go over to your blog…. He does NOT like debate, thinks the BBC moderate poorly….. (ie people he disagrees with get heard)

    see his comment 33#, 34#, 66#, 67#, 85# and Romm’s replies to him…..

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/#comment-298241

    Mapleleaf comments at a LOT of warmist blogs, most recently:
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/christopher-monckton-congressional-testimony-climate-scientists-respond/#comments

    Bart’s blog is a civilised place, he pops up at Keith Kloors – Collide a Scape, and other blogs.
    I disagre with Bart, but he runs an HONEST Blog.. all my comments are allowed, to ‘mapleleaf’s annoyance’ (could be a diffewrent ‘maple leaf’ ?)

    IF it appears at Climate Progress…… my comment, to ‘mapleleaf’

    Climate Progress
    86# barry Woods says
    Your comment is awaiting moderation
    (now deleted)
    September 27, 2010, 7:38 am
    What do you suggest Richard do, self censor, advise the mods to ‘delete’ comment. If he does not do what you approve, of what then?……..

    The BBC ALLOWS anyone to comment as long as they follow the House Rules.
    They have a public charter that is accountable to the public, ultimately.

    I comment at the Richard Black Earthwatch BBC blog. It is MY BBC, as much as it is anyone elses in the UK.

    I guess that would make me a ‘deniar’ in your eyes..

    Why not say a fellow member of the human race, that does not subscribe to the more catstrophic predictions by some lobby groups, of man made global warming due to CO2. (ie lukewarm)

    Would you call me a DENIAR to my face (I have experienced it)
    Would you call me a DENIAR in front of work colleagues, or in a church
    Would you call me a DENIAR in front of my family, my children and friends?
    Would you go into my schools and educate my children to call me a DENIAR merely it seems for asking questions that go unanswered..

    But it is ok on the internet, by someone that hides behind ‘mapleleaf’ rather than be brave enough to use their real name.

    I criticise Richard Black, a LOT, but to defend him (as from that quote, he appears to have the best intentions)…

    He said:

    “While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion”

    Sress: While welcoming a diversity of voices [not like climate progress, who deleted this]

    Perhaps, the BBC is realising, that that self selecting group, is NOT the sceptics, but the loud shouting, vitriolic voices of catstrophic, man made global awarming alarmism, that are actually very small in number vs public and scientific opinion.

    ————————

    A vocal few alarmists, do NOT WANT ANY diversity of voices, they would silence them, they also have had a disproportionate coverage for years… because they shout people down, with sceptic, deniar, and more… David Bellamy?!!! – one of the FIRST environmentalists, a ‘DENIAR

    Look at the sceptic alerts… (a small example)
    A look at the Campaign Against Climate Change website (well funded, establishment figures, MP’s MEP’)

    YET, the discussion forums, echo with tumbleweed, very few comments, a few people activist talking amongst themselves.

    CACC forums:
    http://portal.campaigncc.org/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    It is hard to have a debate, if the rich and powerful, deny members of the public any sort of voice, and shout them down. Climate Progress has deleted MY comment as if it NEVER exisited……. (86# )

    Climate Audit, Jo Nova, Watts Up, Bishop Hill, rattle their paypal Tip Jars, occasionally to help pay for bandwidth..

    Who has the well funded propaganda machinary again?

    Climate Progress is funded by: The Centre for American Progress Action Fund
    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/
    Lots of staff and funding:
    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus/staff
    Lots of jobs as well:
    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus/jobs

    Dr Joe Romm is a very establishment figure,
    http://climateprogress.org/about/

    Dr Joseph Romm was ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY for energy efficiency and renewable energy
    during the Clinton Administration, where he directed $1 billion in research, development, demonstration and deployment of clean energy and Carbon-mitigation technology..

    ROMM believes, so he will deny others a voice, and try to supress those that are off his message……. even a ‘nobody’ like me.

    Roger Harrabin had his Al Gore moment: (3 years ago)

    “And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

    Jo Nova, mentions another scientists experience at the hands of Al Gore:

    “Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.”
    Al Gore was a US Senator – to become Vice -President of the USA in 1993…..

    Another reason to be sceptical, beware those (especially the rich and politically powerful, Gore, Romm) who would deny others a voice, and are intolerant of other voices. How many complaints have the BBC had, that sceptics should not even be allowed to comment, on a BBC blog buried away on the BBC website.

    Best Regards

    Barry Woods

    wondered where the ‘sceptical scientists’ are, they’ve been keepin their heads down, the rich and powerful are in charge…

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/#comment-298241


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    I am beginning to appreciate how fortuanate we are in the UK, to have the BBC.
    They may be wrong on some issues, but I an sure all at the BBC have the very best intentions..

    Perhaps, with words/behaviour like romm’s they are at last stirring from sleepwalking in the great catastrophic man made global warming delusion of the last 25 years.

    THE BBC mods are fair and honest, how many other ‘ CAGW climate websites’ are like this.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] More HERE [...]

    (Did you forget something?) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mailmannz

    I received an email from the BBC mods this morning advising that my post, quoted in Jo’s article, has been removed for breaking the house rules. It seems my post, which was posted on Blacks site for the last 7 days is now suddenly off topic!

    Ive filled out the complaint form, but we shall see!

    Mailman


    Report this

    00