A Place to Stand

The government's chief science advisor Sir David King was attacked yesterday by the former editor of Nature & now the chief scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Jeff Harvey. He said that Sir David's statement that by the end of the century Antarctica would be the only habitable continent was a "kindergarten level analysis assuming that humans are exempt from the laws of nature" & that "If the climate warmed up at such a rate as to make the Antarctica habitable, at least in the time frame I think you are referring to, our species would be facing extinction in the face. Why? Because complex adaptive systems have not evolved to respond to change in such a short time scale". Mr Harvey also went on to attack any suggestion that an increase in CO2 would generally cause an increase in plant growth which has heretofore been accepted by virtually all scientists.

OK here's the skinny.

This was all said on a Green discussion board which I was directed to by a comment on here a few days ago called Deltoid. With a considerable amount of rudeness from most concerned Mr Harvey did indeed make that remark about Sir David since he had not properly read the post & thought the statement came from me. Such insults being common behaviour among those pushing the warming scam, at least in academe (or in the Netherlands)..

I replied (post 146

"Before I forget I agree with you on one point:

I would not have been so impolite as to say that the statement about Antarctica being the only inhabitable continent within a century indicated the author capable of only "kindergarten analysis" but since you have done so I cannot dispute it & reserve the right to quote you. If you had actually read what was written you would have seen it was written by Sir David King the government's chief science advisor & a prominent alarmist

.

I think I can say that repeatedly the "environmentalists" said things which I did prove were untrue, that they continuously refused to acknowledge even the most blatant untruths.

For example said:

"If we were building vast numbers of reactors they could be mass produced & the economies of scale would make them cheap enough for the Chinese to buy enough & for the Indians & even Bangladeshis to buy them with a little western aid." (post 87)

As a result of this statement alone I was repeatedly accused of having said that the western powers are currently preventing the Chinese building their own reactors. Not one single person on the "environmental" side even suggested that I said no such thing so that claim must remain as representing the standard of honesty to which even the most academic "environmentalists" aspire & yet is clearly a total & deliberate lie.

Now I am used to the Greens ranting & having a contempt for mere facts but some people on there, including Mr Harvey were clearly supposed to be serious academics (certainly making their living from it) at the most intellectual end of the "environmentalist" spectrum. Yet it is clear that even here they have no respect whatsoever for facts or real debate & will make up any lie or insult as they go on.

This is what the very best of "environmentalists" can come up with in the way of serious discussion & it is indeed "kindergarten" stuff. Less serious ones like Gore also make up stuff but go to great lengths not to face any sort of actual discussion.

I was previously banned from an earlier Deltoid thread on the grounds that when the discussion went off topic & I answered off topic points raised I also was going off topic & therefore, alone, should be banned. Obviously I have now been banned from this thread which I think I can reasonably take as a sign of success. That they have to behave in this way proves they know their claims are all smoke mirrors & having access to the "official" media on which reasoned discussion has always been prevented (as anyone seeing the BBC can testify).