Good bye global warming

Posted on 5 August 2015 by Scottish-Sceptic

Global warming, is and has always been, a propaganda campaign with a thin veneer of “science”. As the evidence against the scam built up year upon year as mother earth steadfastly refused to warm as instructed, it was inevitable the scam would fall apart. This year, when I heard Greenland was refreezing I finally realised that there was not a shred of evidence to support the scam and so it will inevitably die.
But, the big question was this: will it fade away, go out with a big bang, or will this scam have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the execution chamber.
With the UK slowly dismantling support for gullibles (aka renewables), I was starting to see that politicians would just slowly change the goal posts and like Bird Flu, the Millennium bug, BSE, Ozone, Acid rain – the scam might have just quietly been forgotten as government ease themselves out of the mess they got themselves into.
But then along came Obama + Clinton
I really do not know how these two managed to get themselves tarred with the global warming brush so late in this scam. I’m not going to speculate how it was done, but the simple fact is that the Republicans now have two democrat fools with huge targets painted on their backs and a heap big pile of ammunition and some of the best crack shots I’ve seen.
With figures of $2,000,000,000,000 being banded about as the cost, I’ve got to wonder where Clinton and Obama might not understand the different between a billion ($1,000,000,000) and a trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) after all it is very easy to mistake one for the other! The difference is that rather than a few dollars for each American, the cost is a few 10s of thousands per household.
And from the way Clinton was so easily caught getting on her private jet shortly after delivering a speech saying everyone (else) must cut down on fossil fuel use, I don’t believe she actually cares much for the policy herself. So why? At the very best, Clinton has a hugely costly policy she does not personally endorse.
But the reality is that having personally committed to this policy, Clinton’s massive spending commitment and illegal use of presidential power will have outraged all those Americans who might not have cared much about the climate and might have just turned a deaf ear to sceptics thinking to themselves “we should help the environment”. Now, these people can see the real cost, they can see that the Democrats are hell bent on this political power grab . Clinton and Obama will just galvanised the Republicans and many of their own (previous) supporters to fight against them. Complete disaster politically!
Now “fading out” is not an option. The Republicans with such an open goal left by the Democrats will be setting their phasors to kill and start gunning for it.
So, it is now almost certain we will see this scam blow up in the run up to US presidential election with a massacre of the Democrats and any other climate extremists caught into the crossfire will just be collateral damage!
Let’s put it this way, I will be very surprised if the Republican don’t already have the ammunition to ensure there aren’t criminal prosecutions started against climate extremists before the US presidential election.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Good bye global warming

oldbrew says:

5 August 2015 at 08:15

Obama isn’t new to the ‘climate game’. This was in 2009:
Copenhagen climate summit: Barack Obama says ‘world running out of time’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6839650/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Barack-Obama-says-world-running-out-of-time.html
World leaders got their fingers burnt there so they mostly hid from climate conferences for a few years.
He’s saved his big ‘climate push’ until it’s too late in his presidency to cost him much politically, with his term in office coming towards its end.
Cedric Katesby says:

5 August 2015 at 08:28

Global warming, is and has always been, a propaganda campaign with a thin veneer of “science”.
So…you’re saying that it’s a scam?
As the evidence against the scam…
Ah. So you are talking about a scam? Ok. Or maybe not. Maybe you don’t really mean “scam”.
Not like it appear in the dictionary.
that there was not a shred of evidence to support the scam and so it will inevitably die.
Mechanism? If somebody has actually created a vast conspiracy that includes NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, well, that’s an amazing piece of work if you think about it.
Why, after all these many decades, is it supposed to just “inevitably die.”?
Is it because of lack of evidence?
Well, that can’t be right.
Doesn’t the vast, global, scientific conspiracy manipulate evidence? Did that ability somehow get lost?
Hmm.
…will this scam have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the execution chamber.
If you execute it too quickly, we’ll never find out how the scam was conducted.
That would be a pity.
It’s not like the executioners have any idea.
– the scam might have just quietly…
That word again. Do you really mean “scam”? Honestly?
But then along came Obama + Clinton…
Wait! You’re sticking your neck out and mentioning names?
Good for you. Let’s work with this.
I really do not know how these two managed to get themselves tarred with the global warming brush so late in this scam. I’m not going to speculate how it was done…
Well,….it can’t be done. Not really.
You are not the only one refusing to speculate. Nobody else is either. It’s a bit awkward. Something, something Clinton+Obama, something gullible, something scam….is not going to sound very credible.
Besides…you have to account for the Bush administration.
No idea how you get over that particular bump in the road.
I’m not (nod, nod, wink,wink) going to speculate.
So, it is now almost certain we will see this scam blow up in the run up to US presidential election with a massacre of the Democrats and any other climate extremists caught into the crossfire will just be collateral damage!
Sounds intriguing. No chance of a few hypothetical scenarios, maybe?
Please?
Let’s put it this way, I will be very surprised if the Republican don’t already have the ammunition to ensure there aren’t criminal prosecutions started against climate extremists before the US presidential election.
Oh yes. Criminal prosecutions. Do it.
Name some possible names.
Name some possible charges.
Name some possible mechanics.
Name some possible ammunition.
You really should. It would be fascinating reading.
Only, if you really believe this, then…you really will be very surprised.
Don’t hold your breath.
If you yourself can’t even imagine how something like this might happen, then that’s a pretty big clue that it’s not very well grounded in the real world.
No mechanism.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 08:59

It’s a strange phenomenon but it seems that the higher up you are in any organisation and the longer you’ve been there, the less you realise just how much the scam is falling apart.
It also tells you are lot about their judge of character – they might not know much about science – but it tells you a lot about their judgement if they allow their policy to be dictated by climate extremists.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 09:03

As I have continually said, the scam is taking something as beneficial to life on earth as CO2 and persuading gullible people to pay money to stop it being so beneficial.
It’s the same basic scam as persuading gullible people that some tropical fruit will make them live longer or that some cream will make them look more beautiful or that taking some pills will make them more intelligent.
There always have been gullible people and there always will be gullible people, so there always have been scammers and always will be.
Cedric Katesby says:

5 August 2015 at 09:24

That’s not helping at all. It’s silly.
….persuading gullible people to pay money….
Who? NASA?
Is NASA the gullible one or the one preying on the gullible?
Mechanism, remember?
It’s the same basic scam as…
Every scam (especially basic ones) have mechanisms.
Really.
So….when you go to the police and complain about the scam…you can actually explain the basics of the scam.
Scams do happen. Only they never happen by magic.
“These people (a,b.c) did ( x,y,z) which ended up with them illegally getting my money.”
Mark Hodgson’s not trying to back me up or anything but even he sees that there’s no scam…..sorta.
Pretend that you were trying to explain the logistics of the operation to him rather than me.
Maybe that will help you be more forthcoming.
Scottish Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 09:53

Cedric anyone and everyone who pushes the untruths about CO2 and has their snouts in the trough is part of this scam.
If I were to start listing them, I’d never be able to finish.
And like any pyramid selling scheme, those who are most obvious are usually the most gullible.
As for NASA, there is a history of NASA that used to be on the web that was very honest and explained how it pushed environmentalism to increase support for its projects. It also employed a notorious climate extremists to compile the global temperature data. Either it was incredibly stupid or more likely it did so with the intention of increasing alarm to help increase its funding.
Cedric Katesby says:

5 August 2015 at 10:16

Cedric anyone and everyone who pushes the untruths about CO2 and has their snouts in the trough is part of this scam.
If you really believe that, then demonstrate it.
You are claiming that there are two groups.
(Correct me if I’m wrong on this)
The gullible and the persuaders.
I’m happy to work with that assertion if you are. Only, it’s not going to work.
If I were to start listing them, I’d never be able to finish.
Well, you don’t have to list them all. You are off the hook on that one. No problem.
Just, y’know, list a few. A short 30-second list will be fine.
We can start with NASA.
Is NASA one of the gullible or the scamming persuaders? That would be a start.
Then there’s the Clinton+Obama thing.
How does that slot into everything.
Are they the Dr Evils or did they get cajoled or bribed or something? Or are they they the bribers or cajolers.
Hmm.
Makes a bit of a difference, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Only, well, both options have serious logistical problems.
(Huge, really.)
Then there’s the Bush administration. It’s right there, slapdab in the middle of Clinton and Obama.
Hmm.
Awkward to say the least.
And like any pyramid selling scheme…
AH. Good. A pyramid selling scheme. Only….pyramid selling schemes have a mechanism. They don’t just happen by themselves. You yourself could concoct a viable pyramid selling scheme with relative ease. Anybody could.
And if you get caught by the fraud squad, the police would have no trouble explaining to the court what it was you actually did.
They wouldn’t have to just keep waffling about gullible this and natural variability that and waving your hands in the air vaguely.
Scottish Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 11:09

“Demonstrate it” … there’s no trend in severe weather, the satellites show no warming, the academics can’t predict the climate … and all the time the globe has been greening with record harvests and the fossil fuel economy is providing more and more people with a standard of living that would be the envy of all previous generations.
There I have just proven that CO2 is not a problem.
Therefore, anyone pushing CO2 who makes money from this scam … is making money by damaging our society by the illegal act akin to “crying fire in a cinema”.
And no, there are not two groups of people, instead there are two types of reason why people go along with the scam. Some are entirely gullible, some are really nasty individuals making money from the scam, but from what I’ve seen large numbers are both gullible AND don’t really want to know better because they have their snouts in the trough of public money.
Scottish Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 11:15

Correction – because you are so pedantic – there is a trend in severe weather and that is that hurricanes have been decreasing.
Cedric Katesby says:

5 August 2015 at 13:20

“Demonstrate it” … there’s no trend in severe weather, the satellites…
No.
I’m not asking you why you think there’s a scam.
I’m asking about the “how”…..(focus now)….of the scam itself.
When I say “Demonstrate it”, I am referring to the scam.
It=scam.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer.
The scam.
As in……y’know…the scam.
There I have just proven that CO2 is not a problem.
That’s great. We can work with that if you like. Only I didn’t ask you to prove that CO2 was not a problem, now did I?
Nope.
Never mentioned it.
I’ll concede that for the sake of argument. No problem at all.
CO2 is not a problem.
Job done.
But………………
You have your anomoly. Could be a flag waving in a vacuum. Could be a chart from GSISS or whatever. Could be a slow motion video of the Twin Towers. Could be a series of photos in a first year biology textbook.
Maybe you even have a whole swag of anomalies.
Great. Wonderful.
This is ,b>the big giveaway for you. This is how you know that there must be some nefariousness afoot. “They” can’t fool you.
Um…ok.
So how?
If you think there’s an actual scam happening….then how?
Spell it out.
What’s the mechanics of it all?
Some are entirely gullible, some are really nasty individuals making money from the scam…
OK. Good. Thank you for the correction.
So it’s roughly three groups, right?
(…feel free to correct me here…)
There’s the gullible ones, then there’s the nasty ones and there’s the gullible and just don’t want to know ones.
Ok.
So where does NASA fit in?
Is it nasty or gullible or nastydon’t want to know?
Plus Clinton, Obama and the Bush thingy, of course.
handjive says:

5 August 2015 at 18:21

“Oh yes. Criminal prosecutions. Do it.
Name some possible names.
Name some possible charges.
Name some possible mechanics.
Name some possible ammunition.
You really should. It would be fascinating reading.”
Done & Done:
Man fined for dud doomsday warning
A SELF-STYLED prophet has been convicted of “spreading rumours” for saying a quake would destroy Taiwan.
Wang Chao-hung, better known as “Teacher Wang”, stirred up a media frenzy after he “predicted” a giant quake and tsunami would hit Taiwan on May 11
Mr Wang later claimed that his remarks were misinterpreted by journalists when the catastrophe failed to materialise, but he was convicted by a district court in Nantou, central Taiwan, of spreading socially disruptive rumours.
He may face additional fraud charges as prosecutors are investigating claims that he might have cooperated with container businesses to set up a shelter village in Nantou.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/man-fined-for-dud-doomsday-warning/story-fn6ck55c-1226080950490
. . .
Anyone you know start up a Chicago Carbon Exchange, only to close it after making lotsa moolah, whilst claiming to be able to “stop the climate from changing?
handjive says:

5 August 2015 at 18:37

It was never about the environment.
This is confirmed by Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC this year:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
Scam is just a ‘nice’ word.
The correct word is defined as ” taking money under false premises.”
Scottish-Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 18:51

The problem with this global warming scam, is that the dishonesty has been so widely condoned by authority that many people have forgotten that telling lies to make money or for self advancement is a serious criminal offence.
But when the fickle politicians find that the public has turned against them, they will turn look for scapegoats amongst the many people they once encouraged to tell lies.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

5 August 2015 at 19:01

Handjive, even before I was a sceptic I knew that governments would never be able to do what would have been required of them to “stop” global warming.
Indeed, the reason I stumbled across the sceptics was because I was trying to work out how long fossil fuels would last and therefore how much it would supposedly warm before the lack of fossil fuel did to the world economy what the nuclear bomb did to Hiroshima.
Fortunately, having looked at the science I have been completely reassured that there is absolutely no need to try to “stop” it.
James Sykes says:

5 August 2015 at 20:09

I always maintain that “global warming” ,was just the latest fad /bandwagon ,jumped on by the lunatic fringe. Mainly because they lost the argument over nuclear weapons etc. either that or it’s just another reason for indirect taxation.
Kit Carruthers says:

5 August 2015 at 21:11

So sue me. Oink oink!
handjive says:

5 August 2015 at 22:05

Greetings Scottish-Sceptic from Australia.
Regarding peak-oil, this article from master resource.org makes a good read.
Open-ended Resourceship:
“If resources are not fixed but created, then the nature of the scarcity problem changes dramatically.
For the technological means involved in the use of resources determines their creation and therefore the extent of their scarcity.
The nature of the scarcity is not outside the process (that is natural), but a condition of it.”
https://www.masterresource.org/resourceship/open-ended-resourceship-2012/
Who is to know the next discovery could be the next energy source?
New mineral shows nature’s infinite variability
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news70062.html
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
A University of Adelaide mineralogy researcher has discovered a new mineral that is unique in structure and composition among the world’s 4,000 known mineral species.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 06:17

What the climate extremists in academia don’t understand is that the ones they really have to fear are those they think are their friends: big business which wants them to increase the government dole out and government who just want to “prove” their political opponents wrong.
Because with the tide turning, big business will soon be looking for someone to sue for its own poor investment decisions and politicians will just as quickly hand and draw an academic as anyone else if they think it will get them votes.
Kit Carruthers says:

6 August 2015 at 07:47

But if you’re so certain of our wrongdoing, then you can’t fail to lose, so why not get in before ‘big business’ and make yourself a sceptic hero?
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 07:49

….taking money under false premises.”
Doesn’t matter what you call it. It still doesn’t work.
NASA is not lying to you. There is no scam.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 07:54

Wang Chao-hung, better known as “Teacher Wang”, stirred up a media frenzy after he “predicted” a giant quake….
Perhaps you should read a little more closely.
I very much doubt that ScottishSceptic has some guy in Taiwan (???) in mind when he mentioned the Republican having ammunition to ensure there are criminal prosecutions started against climate extremists before the US presidential election. Maybe you are tuned into some other conversation.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 07:58

The problem with this global warming scam, is that… even the people that think it is happening can’t articulate what is supposed to be going on.
It’s not logistically possible even to them as they privately speculate about it.
No mechanism-no conspiracy.
It’s a problem of scale.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 12:08

Don’t you understand the phrase “I’ve not earned any money from this scam” means? It means I have no money and the only way I could sue anyone is if someone gave me the money.
Also, even if I had the money, I’m just not the kind of person to want to make money at other people’s expense however much they deserve it.
Now if there is a way to make money from the collapse of this scam that doesn’t involve penalising the unfortunately family of some gullible person who is clueless about the science … please do speak up.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 12:18

It means I have no money and the only way I could sue anyone is if someone gave me the money.
Sounds easy enough to fix.
Just ask for some.
Job done.
Plenty of people out there with deep pockets who would be absolutely delighted with someone (anyone) successfully suing NASA (or whoever) over……(drumroll)……the scam.
They’d think you were Christmas!
You’d be a hero.
Anybody remember John Coleman?
That went well. Not.
Let’s take a trip in the wayback machine.
Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud John Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6l1Cp3MYCQ
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 12:21

Cedric Katesby says: “Doesn’t matter what you call it. It still doesn’t work.
NASA is not lying to you. There is no scam.”
You keep believing that if you want – that’s your right in a free society just as others like you are free to believe the moon landing conspiracy or that they’ve been abducted by aliens or that sceptics are funded by “dark forces”.
Your belief is protected and you are free to give all your money to the scammers, to buy your “carbon indulgences” and go and join the church of the latter day global warming.
So is your right to remain ignorant – it doesn’t explicitly say it in the human rights act, but I don’t personally believe people can be forced to educate themselves – even if I personally want it.
But what you are not free to do, is to “shout fire” when there is no fire (even if your belief is that a fire will miraculously appear), to conspire with others to lie to the public for personal gain, to conspire with those in public office to act in an unfit manner, to spread false information about companies intending to alter their share price, to libel sceptics, etc.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 12:25

Cedric Katesby says: “Plenty of people out there with deep pockets”.
You must live in the public sector where (our money) is believed to grow on trees, where santa claus appears every month bringing your pay cheque and (you believe) everyone loves you and wants to give you all their money.
Back in the real world …
I’ve asked the question to a well known high profile sceptic who has far more money than me and the answer was: “sorry, there’s no money in being a sceptic”.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 12:39

Legal definition of conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
1. More than one person
2. To agree to engage
3. To engage
4. In something that is or become illegal
Shouting fire in a crowded cinema is illegal, therefore if a group of people agree to shout fire when there is no fire, they are conspiring to break the law.
There is nothing at all about “mechanism” only that there is an agreement with others that results in something illegal.
So, e.g. when some academics wrote to others asking them to delete emails in contravention of the FOI act, this was very clearly what in law is a conspiracy.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 12:46

….to conspire with others to lie to the public for personal gain…..
Say it. You know you want to. Just say it.
Spit it out, man.
Conspiracy.
Get it out there. Embrace what you truly think. Articulate it bold and clear.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Let your freak flag fly.
There’s no need to be coy. There’s no need to do this endless teasing with a nudge, nudge and a wink, wink and desperate grab of the thesaurus to come up with a more genteel synonym.
Own it.
Come out of the closet.
You’re a conspiracy theorist. The real McCoy!
….to conspire with others to lie to the public for personal gain…..
See?^^^
This!^^^
That’s you. That’s how you see it. And a part of you tries really hard to steer clear of it because you know how very silly it looks to other passersby.
So you weave and you hedge and you hem and you haw.
It’s so…..very flabby.
So is your right to remain ignorant –
Well, that you’re fault, really.
You doggedly refuse to support your silly claim that there’s a scam thingy going on.
You can’t come up with a mechanism.
It’s not really a difficult bar to cross. Most sane people can explain a wide variety of scams out there. There’s always a mechanism.
You have this simply colossal scam thingy going on that really, super-duper important and yet…..you’ve got no mechanism.
No viable mechanism = people get to point at you and giggle.
The comparison between you and the moon landing deniers and the creationists et al. is very apt. None of you lot can solve the problem of scale.
You invested your life in a dodgy load of goods and now you are saddled with it.
I’m just pointing it out.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 12:52

There is nothing at all about “mechanism” only that there is an agreement with others that results in something illegal.
The agreement can’t happen by magic.
They’ve got to agree somehow, right?
They’ve got to all be at the same cinema, right?
On the same day, doing the same thing. Conspiring, remember?
You gotta have a way of actually doing that bit in the real world.
There has to be a mechanism.
Magic or wishful thinking will not suffice.
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 13:03

You must live in the public sector where..
There are these people.
They’re called…….rich people.
You go to a rich person. They give you money. Nothing to do with the public sector.
You say “Hi, Mr Rich Person. Give me money.”
They say “Why?”
You say “Cause you understand there’s a big global warming scam going on, don’t you?”
(…Rich person nods…)
You say ” And wouldn’t it be good if someone threw a spanner in the works with a good ol’ surefire suing lawsuit thingy?”
(…Rich person nods again….)
You say ” Well, look no further. I am your champion. I know what I’m talking about. They can’t fool me. I see through their little game. I’m going to take them to the cleaners and save the day for Truth, Justice and Decency! Wouldn’t that be wonderful?”
(…Rich persons nods again very eagerly…)
You say…” So gimme lots of money to pay for all the legal fees. You’ve seen my plan and the evidence that is bound to sway any court in the land.”
(….Rich person quickly writes out a check to you for squillions…)
…………………………………………………..
N.B.
This scenario applies not just to climate deniers. It works really well with creationists too and anti-vaxxers etc.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 14:45

All that is needed legally is a “meeting of minds”.
If e.g. you hand someone a stone to hurl at a policeman, you have conspired to commit a crime. Not a word need be spoken, you don’t even need to have met them before or after.
Acting with common purpose to commit a crime is illegal.
Kit Carruthers says:

6 August 2015 at 15:35

Don’t you understand “Fight for what you believe in”? I don’t think you actually believe the vicious, untrue shit you write on here. And if you do, you don’t have the bollocks to follow through on any of it. You’re a sad little keyboard warrior Mike Haseler. I’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly attack my profession, my colleagues, and my integrity. Oink oink!
Cedric Katesby says:

6 August 2015 at 16:07

If e.g. you hand someone a stone to hurl at a policeman, you have conspired to commit a crime.
That’s a mechanism.
If you want a stone to be hurled, someone has to hurl it. You’ve got to give it to someone that is willing to hurl it.
Someone give a stone to you….and you’ll…..not hurl it in all likelihood.
The stone does not hurl itself by magic.
To give the stone to someone, there must be a stone.
There must be someone to give it to.
That person must be within arm’s reach.
That person must be willing and able to take the stone and throw it at the policeman.
Mechanism.
There’s a mechanism there.
It doesn’t just somehow happen.
(scene of a policeman brained by a stone)
(Scottish is the only eyewitness)
Detective: What happened here?
Scottish: Gullibility.
Detective: Sorry?
Scottish: Oh, um, never mind. Er…outrage.
Detective: (??)
Scottish: Why are you looking at me like that? I’m telling you what happened to the policeman.
Detective: So you saw what happened, right?
Scottish: Oh yes. Terrible thing.
Detective: And you have a good idea who the culprit is, right?
Scottish: Oh yes. I’m too fast for ’em.
Detective: Good. So what happened.
Scottish: Organisational failure something, something “herd” something social pressure works to “bring them back in line” and raise standards. Something something in authority in the organisation. Obviously the first action (if possible) is to change the leadership. Something something , the only recourse for the public is some form of public condemnation something prosecutions.
(…awkward silence…)
Detective: Go away or I’ll arrest you for wasting police time.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

6 August 2015 at 19:48

[CORRECTION – After writing the reply, I thought I should just check to make sure this “Kit Carrathers” was actually involved in climate and was qualified to have a view on atmospheric physics and to be frank, he has been quite dishonest passing himself off as a “professional” when as far as I can see he does not work in the relevant field, has no qualifications in that field, no experience whatsoever relevant to climate forecasting.
Instead he is one the very many academics up to their backsides in the trough gobbling up public money – claiming they know the forecasts are correct – attacking everyone else for stating scientific fact that the forecasts are wrong – claiming they have been “attacked” when in fact they personally do not work in the field and have no expertise at all in the area]
Kit Carruthers: “I’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly attack my profession, my colleagues, and my integrity. Oink oink!”
You are not the injured party here.
The public have been conned to pay out billions by a bunch of charlatans who falsely claimed greater than 90-95% confidence in their ability to predict something when every single one of their previous forecasts was knowingly wrong.
What is more, you constantly attack people like me who have repeatedly told you that you cannot predict the climate, but rather than admitting we are right, you launch propaganda campaigns of hatespeech.
You might be able to bully your colleagues, fool the gullible politicians, but you cannot bully or fool mother nature into backing up your lies.
Mark Hodgson says:

6 August 2015 at 20:58

He’s almost as annoying as Cedric, isn’t he? In Cedric’s favour, at least he isn’t personally abusive. The true nastiness of the true believers usually will out in the end though. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Mark Hodgson says:

6 August 2015 at 21:27

Kit’s nastiness and personal abuse is more than a little ironic. I thought it would be useful to look him up online too, and have been quite enjoying the links to websites and discussions he has provided. I much prefer a civilised exchange of views, if at all possible. It’s a real shame that there is so much anger (on both sides) of this debate; it doesn’t help. Anyway, I followed one of Kit’s links to a discussion thread relating to an article on Euan Mearn’s site, and found Kit saying this: “If you guys want to conduct a proper discussion on the science, then ditch the rhetoric, and you’ll find that those with different opinions to you will engage in a much more constructive manner.” I couldn’t agree more.
How does that fit with Kit’s comment on this thread: “Don’t you understand “Fight for what you believe in”? I don’t think you actually believe the vicious, untrue shit you write on here. And if you do, you don’t have the bollocks to follow through on any of it. You’re a sad little keyboard warrior Mike Haseler. I’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly attack my profession, my colleagues, and my integrity. Oink oink!”
Please Kit, remember your own pious advice to others, and try to keep it civilised.
Mark Hodgson says:

6 August 2015 at 21:42

One last point, Kit. I’ve just found my way to the “moderation policy” section of your website, which contains this:
“Consider my blog as my home. If you are abusive, obnoxious or trolling, then you’ll not be welcome.” And this: “None of the above affects your right to free speech”.
Again, Kit, please abide by your own rules. It would have been so much nicer if you’d treated this website as the home of its proprietor. We’ll all get along much better and make much better progress if you play nicely.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 07:25

…by a bunch of charlatans who falsely claimed….
No mechanism. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow.
You are writing checks you can’t cash.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 07:30

The true nastiness of the true believers….
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not “true believers”.
Really.
There is no super-duper global scientific conspiracy to fool you.
NASA and all the rest of ’em did not suddenly become all religiously thingy all at once.
Not actually possible for that to happen in the real world.
Scottish Sceptic says:

7 August 2015 at 07:31

In my experience the less climate extremists know about the climate, the more extreme they are. So, e.g. when I was at the Royal Society, I had some very sensible conversations with guys at the Met Office who modelled climate. But it was virtually impossible to have a sane conversation with those looking at the “effects” of the supposed warming.
In other words, you have a culture in academia which would not tolerate the climate modellers coming up with any lower figure for the impact of CO2.
At the time, I thought this disparity meant we were on the verge of being told publicly that the climate modellers did not think the climate would warm anything near as much as had been suggested.
Two years on, I now realise that they like all the other academics, have their snouts in the trough and are keeping quiet in order to keep the public money rolling in.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 07:41

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
It’s not a freedom of speech issue.
It’s about aiding and abetting a disinformation campaign against the public. Without an informed pubic, there is no true democracy.
Anti-vaxxers screech freedom of speech all the time. Your community suffers as a result. We all collectively lose.
The only real winner is 19th century diseases making a comeback.
The tobacco lobby ran disinformation for over fifty years very successfully to protect their industry. It cost the lives of millions. Phillip Morris laughed all the way to the bank.
The think tanks and media strategists that collected the checks from the tobacco companies didn’t just quietly go away after the class action lawsuits of the 90’s. They simply recycled their tactics on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. They even recycled the same spokespeople.
DOUBT – The climate Reality Project
[removed – because I’m fed up with his posts]
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 07:45

I now realise that they like all the other academics, have their snouts in the trough….
Or….you’re just wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.
That makes much more sense.
That would neatly explain why you fumble and stutter when you can’t conceive of a mechanism on the “how” bit.
You have nothing but hand waving.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

7 August 2015 at 07:48

Cedric, you clearly know very little about this subject which you haven’t read in the Guardian or other science-lite site.
So, let’s see what if anything you understand about climate by answering me these simple questions (which are just technically difficult not designed to trick you):
1. How does the greenhouse effect operate
2. How do clouds create both positive and negative feedbacks.
3. What is the physical problem with “average global temperature” compared to e.g. “average sea level”?
4. What is the typical estimate of the effect of doubling CO2 without feedbacks.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 08:04

[removed – because I’m fed up with his posts]
Shame on you.
Censorship will only cripple your ability to test your own beliefs.
You’re not “tired”.
You’re just wrong.
You’ve got no mechanism.
And now, you’re resorting to censorship. The thin edge of the wedge.
Hypocrisy much?
Cedric, you clearly know very little about this subject which you haven’t read in the Guardian or other science-lite site.
Never mentioned the Guardian.
I have mentioned NASA though.
You remember?
So, let’s see what if anything you understand about…
Nothing to do with me. I’m just some guy on the internet. Total duffer when it comes to science. Heaven forbid that I would have such a ponderous ego to set myself up as a figure of authority on science.
I’ll leave that to others.
I’m sure you lots more about sciency stuff…and that’s fine.
Only, on the other hand, there’s NASA.
I look at you and then I look at NASA and then I look at you and then….I look at NASA and then…..I sorta go back to NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

7 August 2015 at 08:10

Cedric, you are either intentionally misunderstanding or you are very very naive and I doubt whether you will ever understand.
Let’s take a simple example of the PPI scam. In this scam employees were given a product to sell. They sold it without caring or considering whether the person they sold it to could use the PPI, there bosses did not care whether or not the customer could claim.
But I doubt many set out to actually defraud customers. It just became common practice to accept that the customers were gullible and would buy a product they did not need or could not use.
All that happened to “cause” the scam, was that people didn’t care whether what they were doing was good for the customers.
It wasn’t a scam because some single salesperson chose to defraud some individual customer, nor even that some high up guy chose to defraud all the customers.
IT WAS A SCAM BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS DID NOT GET SOMETHING THAT WAS WORTH ANY VALUE TO THEM
And CO2 is greening the planet, There is so far no evidence of harm whatsoever. Even if the planet did warm from CO2, the evidence is that there are 20x as many deaths from cold than heat, so it would be a good thing.
And the fossil fuel economy is undoubtedly the greatest achievement of mankind providing a standard of living, health, education, communication, entertainment that would be the envy of all previous generations.
CO2 and fossils fuels are almost without exception, good things for us, but snouts-in-the-troughers like you are lining their pockets by trying to persuade people CO2 & fossil fuels are bad when they are not, and you or people like you personally stand to gain a lot of money from the scam.
That’s why it is a scam, and that’s why you ought to be thoroughly achieved of your scandalous insulting behaviour.
Scottish-Sceptic says:

7 August 2015 at 08:35

Cedric – from your unwillingness to talk about the science, it seems you have a lot of energy without any way to engage you in meaningful dialogue on the one thing that matters.
As I’m rather fed up with your posts which are now just littering the comments like the bird-mincers on our hills, perhaps the best thing would be to suggest you bring all your views together into one article.
So, how about this for an offer – I’ll publish an article written by you. (with provisos – the main one being that it does not attack individuals.) I’ll even let you change the subject (because – let’s be honest, if I’m bored of your comments now, I’m going to be really bored reading a whole article on the same subject)
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 08:43

Let’s take a simple example of the PPI scam. In this scam….
Please. Let’s do.
I’m happy to work with you on any example of a scam that you like. Never once blocked you.
Indeed, I quote you with breathless eagerness every single time.
There’s the carny scam that you first gave as an example.
The stock trading scam from your spoof article.
The pyramid scheme thingy.
The “stone being thrown in a riot” example.
They’re all fine. Really.
Only they all have a mechanism. There are basic logistics that have to be covered for the scam to function. There’s no getting around that.
“IT WAS A SCAM BECAUSE..”
“That’s why it is a scam…”
Not “why”.
How.
I’m asking you the “how” bit.
You keep trying to fob me off with the “why”.
Not ok. Not even a little bit. It’s dishonest.
It’s a problem of scale.
….your scandalous insulting behaviour….
Oh rubbish. Do grow up.
I’ve given you every courtesy.
Even tolerated your ad hominems against me.
And now it seems I’m going to have to put up with Orwellian censorship from you too.
Shame on you.
(Had no idea that the truth of that video would frighten you like that. Telling.)
I haven’t bothered to insult you.
Ripped into your claims?
Oh yes. I’ve certainly done that. Your claims have been given six of the best behind the woodshed. I have being decidedly scathing in that regard.
But you? Nope. By all means quote these mystery insults that you consider so very scandalous. You couldn’t do it last time. Perhaps your other readers will join you in some mutual pearl clutching. Or perhaps they will just read them with a puzzled expression.
Let’s see ’em. Compile a short list of the most odious examples.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 08:46

Are you serious?
Scottish-Sceptic says:

7 August 2015 at 09:02

Of course I’m serious.
You’re clearly getting frustrated trying to make your point and I thought if you had more freedom to lay out your argument we might understand what you are trying to say.
Cedric Katesby says:

7 August 2015 at 12:51

Well, that’s very decent of you. I can’t very well refuse.
You have my email address.
Please use it so that we can make it clear to each other acceptable terms ahead of time and avoid misunderstanding.
If it turns out that it’s not possible to reach terms despite best intentions, then no harm no foul.
Kit Carruthers says:

10 August 2015 at 16:59

…this “Kit Carrathers”
Firstly that’s my real name. You can Google me, in fact. Second, it’s Carruthers.
…he has been quite dishonest passing himself off as a “professional” when as far as I can see he does not work in the relevant field, has no qualifications in that field, no experience whatsoever relevant to climate forecasting.
If you look at my About</a< page on my blog, and look me up on LinkedIn, you'll find that a) I have a degree in Carbon Capture and Storage which is relevant to climate change and b) I'm a CCS researcher, again relevant to climate change. But you wouldn't have seen that as you neither bothered to read the relevant part of my blog, or look me up online. And by the way, when did I claim any expertise on climate forecasting?
Instead he is one the very many academics up to their backsides in the trough gobbling up public money
Again, if you’d actually done any research on me, you’d see that I receive funding from Scottish Power. Are they in public ownership now? Maybe I’ve missed something.
Kit Carruthers says:

10 August 2015 at 17:01

Ooops, messed up the html tags 🙁
Kit Carruthers says:

10 August 2015 at 17:20

Thank you for the comment, glad you enjoyed reading it. And indeed Mark, a civilised discussion is the way forward, however there is no civility in what Mike writes. Perhaps the swearing was over-the-top; people make mistakes. I apologise for the cursing, but not for the meaning.
Mike’s blog here is devoted to calling my colleagues, and my profession as a scientist, liars, scam artists, idiots, people of low/no morals, schemers, nasty and evil. Believe me, facing that barrage of garbage it’s difficult to remain civilised at all.
Regarding your comment below “It would have been so much nicer if you’d treated this website as the home of its proprietor. We’ll all get along much better and make much better progress if you play nicely.“, it is clear that Mike has no intention of playing nice or progressing his thinking. He is a broken record “scam, scam, scam”. And I do treat his home as he treats it himself. Mike is free to come defend himself on my blog about comments I have made about him and he’ll see how long he lasts before his comments become indecent and disrespectful. I think he’ll find that the level of discussion is much more civilised than he’s used to.
Mark Hodgson says:

12 August 2015 at 15:35

Kit
Thank you for your more conciliatory reply, and apologies for the delay in responding to it. I haven’t been ignoring you, but have been away for a few days, and have just seen your latest comments on this thread.
Personally, although I am commenting as a guest on this website, I would say that I think the tendency on the part of some sceptics to use words like “scam” is a little provocative, although I can understand why they think and write as they do.
For my part I accept that many people like yourself, who I would (with respect) label as “climate change alarmists” sincerely believe as they do and are frustrated – even angered – by the refusal of others to agree with you. That does not stop me, and others like me, thinking that a climate change industry – and it is now a huge industry – which takes trillions of dollars, pounds, euros (take your pick) from the pockets of poor people often to enrich already wealthy people, is an industry that needs to be treated with scepticism. Although “greens” always like to say that “big oil” (whatever that is) is only interested in money, and therefore funds “denialist” (that deliberately offensive word) activity, people like me see a huge vested interest on the part of the climate change industry, determined, for good reasons on the part of some people, but for bad reasons on the part of others, to keep the climate change alarm going.
I have no intention of impugning your motives personally, as I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs, but I would observe that the fact that you have a degree in carbon capture and storage and are now researching CCS issues means, firstly, that you have already made up your mind, second that you took a degree in a subject that is pointless if you and your friends are wrong about man-made climate change, and thirdly that in all probability you anticipate a career in CCS or other climate change related activity. You therefore have a vested interest in believing it to be true, With all due respect, I therefore find it more than a little ironic that you have an article on your blog entitled “Biases, and the world of climate change denial on my doorstep”. On the other side of the argument Jo Nova has a similar article (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/psychology-and-climate-alarm-how-fear-and-anxiety-trump-evidence/#more-43859) making the same point in reverse. I “have no dog in this fight” as I believe the Americans would put it, but find it more than a little amusing that both sides accuse the other of bias without recognising their own inbuilt bias.
On the climate change industry point, politicians are the main problem. They have seized on supposed man-made climate change as a great way of raising “green” taxes and appearing, for once, like the good guys when they take money off people. Landowners think it’s great if they can receive massive subsidised rent for wind turbines or solar panels on their land. Numerous consultants derive a fortune from all this. The Met Office is getting a new super-expensive computer, funded by the taxpayer, largely on the back of their alarmist prognoses about climate change, most of which are as inaccurate as their weather forecasts. And an awful lot of alarmists and academics are going to look very stupid if the theory of man-made climate change turns out to be wrong. A lot of politicians are going to be unelectable if it turns out to be wrong.
In short, while I agree that the word “scam” is perhaps not the best one – and certainly not the least offensive – to use, I repeat that I can understand why people use it. I can see that a lot of people are making a lot of money from this whole process, and I can see that a lot of people have a lot to lose (whether politically, financially or professionally) if the man-made climate change theory is debunked.
Finally, you are angry about websites like this one, but you are allowed to comment on it, which is laudable on its owner’s part, whatever you think of him. I am angry about people like Al Gore spreading the alarmist message perhaps more effectively than anyone else, then making a fortune out of carbon trading, some of which he used to buy a beachfront mansion in Florida. Have you seen the post-apocalyptic map of Florida in his book “An Inconvenient Truth”? His mansion will be under water soon if he’s right. So why did he buy the mansion? Is he a liar or an idiot? I am angry at being lectured by people like Pachauri lecturing me on my CO2 footprint, then flying back from New York to India for a weekend so that he can watch some cricket for a day. I am angry about the destruction of forests for wood pulp. I am angry about the destruction of our wild places, by the erection of (in my opinion) ugly, inefficient and unreliable wind turbines, which probably don’t – taking into account the whole construction process – save more CO2 than is involved in their manufacture and installation. I am angry about lots of things in this whole farce, but I hope I manage to keep it polite and civilised. Please remember that people disagree with you as passionately and sincerely as you disagree with them. it doesn’t make them worse people than you, nor does it entitle you to behave badly on their website. But thank you anyway for the partial apology.
Cedric Katesby says:

13 August 2015 at 14:13

“…to use words like “scam” is a little provocative, although I can understand why they think and write as they do.”
It’s the same reason the anti-vaxxers and the creationists and the moon landing deniers etc. think and write the same thing.
Same problem; same solution.
“For my part I accept that many people like yourself, who I would (with respect) label as “climate change alarmists”..”
Then you are going to have to label NASA as alarmists too. And every single scientific community on the planet. There is no daylight between the “alarmists” and NASA.
It makes you look better to talk about mystery “alarmists”. Objecting to some “alarmist” on the internet…then it’s just you versus some other guy. Sounds perfectly fair. He has an opinion. You have an opinion. Who knows who is right? Toss a coin. Doesn’t sound weird at all. But….that’s not what’s really going on.
There the 900lb gorilla in the room. That nobody wants to talk about.
NASA.
“That does not stop me, and others like me, thinking that a climate change industry – and it is now a huge industry – which takes trillions of dollars, pounds, euros (take your pick) from the pockets of poor people…”
Call a spade a spade and be done with it. At least Scottish Sceptic is prepared to use the word scam. Stop dancing.
Either you embrace your inner conspiracy theorist or reject it.
Nothing is going to make you stop thinking like this until you decide to bite the bullet and look at your position skeptically.
It’s untenable. That’s why you insulate it from criticism.
“Although “greens” always like to say that “big oil” (whatever that is) is only interested in money, and therefore funds “denialist” (that deliberately offensive word) activity,..
It’s something that is well documented. An industry funding a disinformation campaign to confuse the public so as to protect it’s profits. It happens all the time. Coke is now doing the same thing. It’s a fairly simple media strategy. Doesn’t even need that much money. Big Tobacco did it first and the rest just copied the method.
“…..if the climate change industry, determined, for good reasons…”
There’s no mechanism. You cannot think of one. Nobody can. No mechanism? Then …(shrug)….no hanky-panky going on. There’s not going to be any “criminal prosecutions”.
Not now.
Not ever.
“….both sides accuse the other of bias without recognising their own inbuilt bias….”
There’s NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. That’s the “side” you oppose. That neatly covers it.
“I can see that a lot of people are making a lot of money from this whole process, and I can see that a lot of people have a lot to lose…”
What you can’t see is a mechanism. That has not changed. Your own imagination fails you.
DOUBT – The climate Reality Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjVjr-qOpNk
Mark Hodgson says:

13 August 2015 at 19:52

I see Cedric still won’t go away, even crawling all over a conversation between two other people.
NASA is there again, his private obsession. He needs to understand that the rest of the world doesn’t share his obsession with and hero-worhip of NASA. A little less arrogance and a little more humility on the part of some of our American cousins would be most welcome.
“There’s NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.” Wow! That really told me! I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single scientific community in the whole wide world, every last one of them. Not even a teeny bit of doubt then on the part of ANY scientists anywhere (yes, I know Cedric hedged his ridiculous claim by saying “scientific community” not “scientist”, but honestly, what a crazy thing to say.
It’s an astonishing trick to have pulled off, but fair play to Cedric for achieving it. The man who brainwashed himself…
Cedric Katesby says:

14 August 2015 at 07:37

He needs to understand that the rest of the world…
I don’t care about the “rest of the world”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Science isn’t decided by a popularity poll.
If the rest of the world wants to believe that the moon landings never happened then….more fool the rest of the world.
This science thing? You are doing it wrong.
In science, only the work counts.
NASA does the work. They really do. NASA and all the other perfectly normal, scientific communities out there. They are all good. They all do the work. The usual way. For many decades. Across all the Earth Sciences. Nothing bad is going on behind the scenes.
You can’t fake a scientific consensus.
Nobody can.
It’s not physically possible.
The only way to create one is with work, the old-fashioned way.
I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single scientific community in the whole wide world, every last one of them.
Yep.
Really.
That’s exactly how it is. Sounds bad, eh? Your casual neutral observer is going to read that and go…”Wha?”
On the other hand, you could re-frame it a little to make it sound less oddball.
“I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single alarmist community in the whole wide world, every last one of them.”
See? That sounds much more sane somehow.
“I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single scammer in the whole wide world, every last one of them.”
Even better. Nobody likes scammers, right? You could also go with leftists or commies or academics or dogmatists or greenies or whatever. Play fast and loose with the label and the whole “scientific community” thing gets lost in the shuffle.
Do you know what creationists call biologists?
They call them “evolutionists”.
Clever, eh?
“I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single biology department in the whole wide world, every last one of them.”
Creationists never say that. It just looks bad. Sure, it’s true but…..it just looks bad.
I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single scientific community in the whole wide world, every last one of them.
Well, there’s no need to trust me. You could always fact check it. You have access to google, right?
There are probably hundreds of scientific communities out there, right?
So….have a look around for yourself and see how many scientific communities reject the scientific consensus on climate change.
Simple enough.
Start with your ten top favourite scientific communities.
Then…when they don’t pan out, extend your search to your top 20 or…fifty or whatever.
You’re not going to find any, though.
Mark Hodgson says:

14 August 2015 at 07:55

Ah Cedric, dear Cedric. Cedric the broken record. Cedric the one-trick pony. I see he’s now reduced to re-writing what I’ve posted, so that he can deploy (for the umpteenth time) his one and only weak argument against what he wishes I’d written rather than against what I did write. Even by Cedric’s standards, this is getting ridiculous.
I gather that Cedric lives – or at least once lived – in South Korea. I suspect he took a wrong turn somewhere. Given his child-like faith in what he regards as authority, and his unquestioning, unthinking acceptance of propaganda, he would probably find a more congenial intellectual atmosphere in North Korea.
Maybe that’s it. Maybe Cedric’s really a North Korean agent whose mission is to destroy the western world by preaching endless eco-drivel at us.
Cedric Katesby says:

14 August 2015 at 08:02

So…you couldn’t find any?
Told you so.
I and people like me (including not a few scientists along the way) are apparently in disagreement with every single scientific community in the whole wide world, every last one of them.
Yep.
Really.
Mark Hodgson says:

14 August 2015 at 19:15

Tired as I am of Cedric’s monologue, I thought I should do him the courtesy of re-visiting the website of his great God NASA for an update on what they have to say. From their website it took a few seconds to find these statements:
“Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect””. Read carefully Cedric – NASA says “most”, not “all”. By the way, given that there is no current warming trend, and hasn’t been for the best part of 20 years, it rather casts doubt on NASA’s objectivity in this debate, doesn’t it?
“The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict [that’s “difficult to predict”, Cedric], but certain effects seem likely [that’s “seem likely”, Cedric, not “certain”]:
“On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not”. [That’s conclusive and damning then – not!]
“Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.” Wow, scary stuff!
And so it goes on. I couldn’t be bothered to keep reading, because I’d be admitting that Cedric has a point, which he doesn’t.
There’s no need to reply, Cedric, and if you do, I won’t reply to you because you’ve really bored me rigid this time and I have better things to do with my time than to argue with a broken record, so please don’t take silence from me to be an admission of defeat – it most certainly isn’t!
Cedric Katesby says:

15 August 2015 at 09:17

Read carefully Cedric – NASA says “most”, not “all”
Read even more carefully.
Scientific community =/= scientist.
It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. That hasn’t changed.
No exceptions.
That doesn’t just somehow happen all by itself.
You still cannot find any scientific community that rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
The anti-vaxxers are in the same boat with their barrow that they push.
As are the HIV denier and the moon landing deniers and the creationists etc.
Same problem, same reaction.
By the way, given that there is no current warming trend, and hasn’t been for the best part of 20 years,…
Not according to NASA.
(shrug)
Instead of getting your science information from goodness knows where, try NASA. Or some other scientific community. They are all good.
Lift your standards. There’s no need to meekly believe and Tom, Dick or Harry with a Phd. Even if they do have a blog.
Seriously, try.
…it rather casts doubt on NASA’s objectivity in this debate, doesn’t it?
Nope.
There is no way to come up with a scenario where NASA is doing some hanky-panky or something.
I don’t care what you call it.
You can call it a “scam” or a “conspiracy” or a “lack of objectivity” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) or whatever. There’s still no mechanism.
Reality is a bummer that way.
If NASA was doing something wrong, like “something objectivity something something”…then some other scientific community would notice.
That’s not happening.
Idle fantasy will only get you so far.
I couldn’t be bothered to keep reading, because I’d be admitting that Cedric has a point, which he doesn’t.
NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. All the work they do. Covering all the Earth Sciences. Going back decades.
You have nothing in comparison.
Scientific consensus and arguments from authority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA
Mark Hodgson says:

15 August 2015 at 19:56

The Cedric Katesby School of Debating:
Rule 1. Although you nothing about the person you are debating with, it doesn’t matter what their academic qualifications, what high-powered jobs they’ve held, whatever their experience of life, they disagree with Cedric about climate change, so they must be simple. It’s crucial, therefore, when debating with them, to adopt a tone which is as supercilious and patronising as possible. Harangue them constantly.
Rule 2. Repetition, repetition, repetition. They’re simple, remember. You’ll probably have to tell them the same thing at least 100 times before they even begin to understand, so keep at it. Repetition, repetition, repetition.
Rule 3. Even when gatecrashing discussions on websites based in the UK, don’t do your readers the courtesy of trying to speak in simple English, Remember you’re an American, and use meaningless and unintelligible Americanisms like “anti-vaxxers” and “troofers”. They will mean nothing to your audience, but should alienate and irritate them, and hey, that has to be a good thing, doesn’t it? Half the fun of this is annoying people, isn’t it?
Rule 4. It’s good when your debating opponents try patiently and at some length to explain their arguments. The more they say, the more you can cherry-pick their comments to quote back at them out of context and make fun of them. That way you can simply ignore any comments they make which are a bit tricky to deal with. Pretend they didn’t happen, that’s easiest.
Rule 5. If you can’t cherry pick, then re-word what your opponent said. That way you can argue with what they didn’t say, rather than with what they did say. It’s so much easier that way.
Rule 6. When gatecrashing a discussion, don’t stick to the subject matter under discussion. For goodness’ sake, how stupid would that be? No, always move the debate onto your onto chosen ground. Much safer there.
Rule 7. Always define the debate in your own terms, whatever your opponents want to talk about. This links in with Rule 2 – repetition, repetition, repetition. It also facilitates rules 8 & 9 (see below).
Rule 8. If your opponent raises a tricky argument which it isn’t easy to ignore and which isn’t easy to deal with, claim that it isn’t relevant to the debate (as you’ve defined it) and thus avoid engaging with it. Phew, that was a close one!
Rule 9. If your opponent asks you an awkward question which you’ll have difficulty answering, claim that it isn’t relevant to the debate in the terms you’ve chosen, and thus indicate that it isn’t for you to answer questions. Phew, another close one!
Rule 10. Conversely, you’ve chosen to define the terms of debate, so you’re certainly entitled to demand that your opponents answer YOUR questions. If they answer them unsatisfactorily (i.e. in a way which doesn’t prove you to be right, or worse still, proves you to be wrong) dismiss the answer as unsatisfactory and keep asking it (or move on quickly if the answer was just too uncomfortable)..
Rule 11. Absolutely insist that your opponents use words only as defined by the OED if that helps to pin them down, Conversely, words mean whatever you want them to mean when YOU use them. And don;t let your opponents pin you down with verbal niceties. Scientists? Pah? Who is a scientist? Only scientific COMMUNITIES (whatever they are) count. Remember rule 7 – define the debate in your own terms. Don’t allow your opponents’ logical arguments to derail you.
Rule 12. The Great God NASA. Remember that NASA is the God, the all-knowing one, the upholder of the true faith, the one and only paramount scientific community. Mention it at every possible moment. Allow no-one to denigrate it or cast doubt on its objectivity or impartiality. How could it be anything other than objective, impartial, scientific, disinterested? DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU SIMPLETONS? NASA IS GOD!!!
Ah yes, NASA. Never mind that its acronym stands for National Aeronautics and SPACE Administration, but the section of its website dealing with temperature datasets doesn’t mention the satellite datasets. You can’t question its omission of relevant but inconvenient datasets from its websites, even though any truly scientific organisation would present the public with all relevant facts and would never dream of presenting a conclusion based on partial information only. You can’t accuse it of mis- or only partial representation because (DIDN’T YOU HEAR ME?) NASA DOES SCIENCE, so it must be right. Define the debate in your own terms, and you can never lose the debate.
NASA, which relies on the GISS datasets most heavily of all, datasets which are constantly being adjusted without explanation, so as to have the effect of cooling the past and warming the present. You can’t question it, though – NASA DOES SCIENCE! Define the debate in your own terms, and you can never lose the debate.
NASA, which does science, but much of the evidence on which it relies (see the various footnotes on its websites) comes from a small coterie of self-selecting and self-reinforcing organisations (such as the IPCC), who all constantly quote each other’s findings as evidence, in an effort to add verisimilitude to their claims. But you can’t question this, because NASA does science. Define the debate in your own terms and you can never lose the debate.
NASA, which does science, not politics, but which has a website aimed at brainwashing children (http://climatekids.nasa.gov/) and which has the rather sinister and Stalinist logo “Climate kids – NASA’s eyes on the earth”. According to the website, Climate Kids is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory / California Institute of Technology. JET Propulsion! CO2 emissions, anyone? It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious and hypocritical. But you can’t question it, because NASA does science. Define the debate in your own terms and you can never lose the debate.
NASA, which still publishes on its website the long-debunked “97% of climate change scientists agree” claim. But you can’t argue with that, because NASA does science. Define the debate in your own terms and you can never lose the debate.
NASA, whose website contains the illuminating sentence: “A 1975 study by the U.S. National Academy of Science said, in effect, “We don’t know. Give us money for research.”” But it’s not about money, NASA does science, you can’t question their motives. Define the debate in your own terms, and you can never lose the debate.
I could go on, and on and on, and having learned over these last weeks from the Cedric Katesby School of Debating, it’s tempting to do so (remember rule 2 – repetition, repetition, repetition), but knowing how annoying it gets, I’ll stop there.
That’s me done on this thread, I didn’t mean to come back to it as it is, but after Cedric’s last comments, I had to pull it all together. Whatever he comes up with next (who knows? Maybe rule 13 will come into play!) this thread has gone on long enough – too long – so I’m finished with it. But remember Cedric, the fact that I’m going off to do something more interesting than argue with you ad nauseam doesn’t mean you’ve won.
In the end, none of us will know who’s “won” for a few decades yet, when everything should start to become clearer.
Over and out.
Cedric Katesby says:

16 August 2015 at 06:07

If you are going to quote NASA, then you should do it honestly. There’s no need to cherry-pick their comments to quote back at them out of context and make fun of them.
Do scientists agree on climate change?
“Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
NASA

Comments are closed.

Good bye global warming

63 Responses to Good bye global warming

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta