Thursday, December 18, 2008
Now this would not be surprising if Barry was a teenager running his blog from his mother's back room but in fact Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide & most of his pals seem similarly prominent. My previous experience on Deltoid also involved senior people such as the former editor of Nature Jeff Harvey, who mistook what I quoted Sir David King as saying for what he thought I had said & in error but truthfully referred to the author as infantile.
These people & presumably many of their readers are pretty much the top class scientists in the "global warming" community & yet they are completely incapable of seriously discussing the theory which they claim to believe in without moving the debate to ad hominum attacks & when that fails, censorship. Note also that where there are a couple of dozen posters on these sites none of the presumably hundreds of alarmist experts came on to point out factual errors. I did get a couple of supporting comments from people who inclined to scepticism. Now in any real science it isn't supposed to matter which side you are on (in theory there are no sides in science but human beings rarely achieve that) & errors are pointed out freely & without rancour.
Here are some factual nonsenses which these "scientists" maintained.
Ist BNG thread
#51 On the non-existence of a real scientific debate "In fact it is the whole essence of the debate… real science being contradicted by loud noisy and ill-informed opinion designed to confuse the issue and muddy the waters."
#62 "as for anyone looking for “an excuse for the globe failing to warm”, all I can say is that you are as wrong about the motivations behind comments posted here as you are about the facts of climate change, which in itself is an impressive achievement" - wordy but a direct & unlimited assertion that the globe has not failed to warm since 1998
#69 "the surface temperature record is rising ... despite all of the assertions to the contrary of the various industry shills, crackpots and useful idiots"
#82 "And if Gore has made any errors in his film productions" My reply was IF?
88# "You are simply regurgitating myths e.g.[that] the Michael Mann Hockey stick graph, ... have been comprehensively debunked" to deny that the Hockey stick was not debunked is something that nobody honest could ever claim
#103 "the tone of discourse here is mild compared with the Denialist side of matters....And if you “have never seen sceptical blogs engaging in personal attacks ..... Marohasy’s blog, or Andrew Bolt’s, or Graeme Bird’s, or any of countless others where the level of rabid conservative hysteria and name-calling defies description"
Barry's other thread
#4 On my pointing out that Gore had lied when he said in his film that rising sea levels had already forced the evacuation of some south sea islands"It was not said in An Inconvenient Truth"to be fair a few days later, after I had proven it was & asked him to acknowledge it a few times Barry did acknowledge that not all of them had left yet. In fact sea levels are falling in much of the area & no such evacuation has taken place or is needed.
#6 "Most scientists agree that the last IPCC report (quoted above) is conservative and is already behind the present situation"
#11 “The 31,000 scientists say” blah blah blah - is another of your recycled denialist myths" so allegedly the Oregon Petition of 31,000 sceptical scientists does not exist "As to those of the scientific fraternity who back the science - 90% - over 600,000 - are in consensus" despite repeated requests he never produced any support for that figure or withdrew it
#16 "Ed: Neil, stop trolling. You’re hereby on moderation. All you need to do is post something that is even vaguely sensible" as you will see his banning me turned on a post which purely presented facts which could have been disputed were they not clearly true
#31 "i did kindly ask you, to quote me on saying that there are no subsidies on biofuels"
#50 "it seems that just about all of the 'Peak Oil' denialists have suddenly become very quiet, what with the recent increases in the price of oil." not so much a point of fact, though it is factually untrue, but amusing in that the peak oil alarmists are suddenly no longer using the price of oil as evidence
#119 "Neil, as usual, hashes up the science when he writes, "plants grow better in increased CO2 (something thoroughly proven)". NOT. Not even close (please enlighten me as to your research in this field, Neil HAHAHAHAHAHA" moron - this was Jeff Harvey the ex-editor of Nature again not a Scooby Doo villain
All of theses are clearly untrue, not fudged or open to interpretation but completely & absolutely untrue & yet with the exception of half of 1 of them they were & still are all maintained & even supported by censoring the person who disputed them. This is not among Sun readers but among hundreds of the top climate "scientists" of the alarmist movement. What we see is not like the Pope's persecution of Galileo, where the Pope was merely using force to decide a legitimate scientific debate (on the wrong side but the idea that the Sun went round the Earth was at least defensible at the time). What we are seeing is the equivalent of Lysenkoism, but on a much grander & more destructive scale, where the Presidium merely asserted that they had a "consensus" on a view for which there was no scientific evidence & which only charlatans & the fearful supported. It is clear that all the alarmist scientists on these sites & therefore as a statistical certainty at least 99% of all alarmist scientists are prepared to actively or passively support any lie no matter how obvious to keep their budgets.
The final post on BNG's first thread which Barry censored on the grounds that it was not "vaguely sensible" was entirely limited to putting up factual answers to (linked)previous points:
"David 105 - Yes. Can you produce links from that site showing mass ad hominem attacks on an alarmist who has made a scientific point. I do not ask for the "name calling [that] defied description" that Bernie claims to have found merely the equivalent of "kooks" & "tin hat wearer" that Bernie finds proper.
Barry 106 - Cooling http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/23/hansencheck.gif
Perps 107 - You could equally have put up a link to the expanding ice in Antarctica.
Bernie 103 - If you say I shouldn't count 1998 could you name any alarmist who, at the time, said it shouldn't count as evidence for warming. If not who is cherry picking?
In any case you are wrong to say that 1998 was "the warmest year ever recorded". Stephen McIntyre forced NASA/GISS to acknowledge that, at least in the US were records are most extensive, 1933 was the warmest year.
This happened a year & a half ago so obviously the alarmist press haven't reported it yet..
He replaced it with "Ed: Sorry Neil, but the amount of mangled disinformation and recycled claptrap that was packed into that last post was the last straw" Well Barry clearly any alarmist "scientist" who is not a cheap charlatan but will either be able to point out how everything I said there was untrue or will denounce this as censorship by a lying parasitic charlatan.
[The last post censored on the other thread without acknowledging it had been done]
Perps 24 says "further research (not Neil’s forte) is needed to track down and calculate the numbers of scientisits worldwide"
Since you have previously claimed to know for a fact that 600,000 out of the world's 666,666 scientists supported alarmism & you now claim "research" is needed you seem to have caught yourself out in a lie.
Good luck on your attempt to prove Gore was not a liar & the alarmist community complicit when he said Tuvalu had been evacuated by finding enough people currently living there & willing to say they have been evacuated. I have no doubt you will find many alarmists willing to testify to that.
This is not merely a minor online spat. These people represent pretty much the cream of Global Warming/Climate Change science. If they are ignorant charlatans whose case depends on propaganda & censorship then this is indeed a bigger fraud than Lysenkoism
That the University of Adelaide provide a Professorship to such an ignorant fool who feels unable to profess anything without censoring scientific debate shows they have less respect for philosophical truth than the University of Wooloomooloo.
If you really feel the need to communicate with him on this topic, you should probably work around the periphery and try to gain traction in a non-threatening way.
He identifies so completely with climate change that any skepticism at all will be considered a personal attack to him, no matter how well reasoned or courteous your communication may be objectively.
I must admit I wickedly enjoy winding these people up - making some outrageous claim, getting them to denounce it as outrageous & then proving it & asking them to put up counterfacts.
The strongest correlation is through the Mencken remark in the heading about the ned to produce a constant stream of enemies whethet it be Milosevic or rising seas & the enthusiasm of the media to lie about both.
We have to work for mass-sackings of these people. They are not going to stop wrecking circumstances for the rest of us unless we can get people fired by the bushel.
Sorry, but didn't the scientists predict more frequent and more ferocious climate events? Excessive heat in Victoria, torrential rain and flood in Queensland and heavy snowfalls in balmy Devon and Cornwall, UK.
Couple of interesting posts on Prof Brook's blog www.bravenewclimate.com regarding the probability that a "once in a hundred year heatwave" has occured twice in 10 months in SA.
This is for those, reading this site, who are not core pseudo sceptics and genuinely want the facts on CC/AGW.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/#comment-5995 and "How hot should it really have been over the last 5 years?
I am allowing this post advertising Mr Brooks blog even though he will not allow factual comments from me on his. This is because either (A) I am not afraid of the facts & he is, (B) I believe in free speech & he intrinsically doesn't, or (C) both.