Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Challenge to Name Warming Alarmist Not Paid by the State - Scotsman letter

  This letter is in the Scotsman today. This is only the 2nd time a newspaper has been willing to publish a letter aski8ng this question - perhaps a sign of change. It deliberately challenges Ballantine, Harvie or indeed anybody else to name a single scientist who is not paid by government but still supports CAGW and it will be interesting to see if they, or anybody else in the movement, do. Online comments are strongly supportive and even opponents give no names.. Editing in bold
Tom Ballantine expresses his outage that anybody might think he financially benefits from denouncing catastrophic global warming aka global warming aka climate change aka climate chaos on the grounds that "I receive no remuneration from Stop Climate Chaos Scotland" (letter 6th Sept).
I would have been much more impressed if Mr Ballantine had been able to say who does pay him and is his position as head of SCCS career enhancing or not. I have looked for but not found any senior member of the "environmental" community who is not ultimately paid out of our taxes.
He gives, as his sole reason for supporting the claim that we are experiencing catastrophic warming (or whatever) the assertion that "97% of climate scientists" accept it. 100% of "astrology scientists" making their living from it say that astrology works but we will have to disagree on whether this is sufficient to prove it.
I challenge him to name a single one of those "scientists" or indeed a single scientist, anywhere in the world who supports catastrophe claims and is not paid by the state.
I have asked 10s of thousands of alarmists, worldwide (including Patrick Harvie on air), not one of whom has been able to present a single name, who did not turn out either not actually to be a supporter of alarmism or to actually be paid from taxes.
HL Mencken once said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary".
The fact that nobody has been able to cite a single independent scientist who supports warming alarmism strongly suggests it is such a hobgoblin.

But perhaps Mr Ballantine will be able to provide a name.

 I regret the left out the reference to 100% of "astrology scientists" making a living from it saying it isn't a scam.

 The removal of "not actually" reverses the literal meaning of my point but I think it is made clear in the bulk of the letter. This is clearly simply an editing error and I am in no position to complain because they edited in "to cite" which was what I meant but had carelessly left out.

Otherwise editing tightens it up.

PS I got an email from Patrick Harvie MSP yesterday in reply to a bulk mailing of all MSPs about the Tunnel Project. He was opposed, as I expected, but only on ideological grounds. I will write of this later, when I am sure all the others have had the time to reply.

Labels: , ,

Back from the book burn, 80-vote-wonder man?

Your questions, including this one *have* been answered, again and again, whereas you have yet to answer these with honest answers:

(And I'll add an 8th question, Beil Raig: Can you put together a string of 7 words without misspelling one in your responses?)

Here are seven questions that no climate so-called “skeptic” has been able to answer. If they were to answer them honestly they would be forced to admit that their entire anti-science jihad is corrupt:

1. Do you agree with Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer’s statements that anthropogenic global warming is undeniable?

2. Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has increased ocean acidification, hastening the destruction of marine ecosystems with long term negative consequences for seafood production?
3. Do you accept that the National Academy of Sciences, and subsequent peer reviewed literature, have affirmed the fundamental conclusions of the “Hockey Stick” temperature reconstructions presented Mann and his colleagues?

4. Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the denialist side, such as Steven McIntyre’s claim that the National Academy of Sciences supported his critique of Mann, or Wegmann’s critique of Mann being shown to be plagiarism and fraud, are examples of denailist “voodoo”?

5. Do you accept that there are a number of carbon-based fuel conservation solutions and alternative energy sources that are both affordable and will have to be undertaken eventually anyway as fossil fuel reserves are depleted?

6. Do you accept that denialist fraud (Such as Wegman’s or McIntyre’s) detracts from the credibility of the entire denialist movement?

7. Of the alleged "skeptics" - can you name 2 climate specialists, who have no track record of fossil fuel industry support, who deny the scientific consensus regarding global warming outlined by the IPCC?
I am a scientist. I am not paid by the state. I understand climate change and related topics, and I'm quite convinced that the release of copious quantities of formerly fossilized carbon in the form of CO2, from burning fossil fuels, has been warming the planet unduely for over a century but especially in recent decades. This is known as Anthropogenic Global Warming and it is real, important, and needs to be curtailed.

Again, I am a scientist and I am not paid by any government agency whatsoever.
Greg is "answering" a question I put on his blog
about who pays him if his claim to be the only scientist worldwide who supports alarmism and is not ULTIMATELY paid by government. Despite having claimed there to have given the answer here he clearly hasn't.

Such duplicity does not inspire confidence.

The Anon here is Skip also from "scienceblogs" apparently a serious "climate scientist" "published in the finest journals". He has asked these questions, as a way of weaselling out of answering my earlier 7 questions, before and I answered them.

I will consider him a fine example of the integrity and intelligence of "climate scientiasts" generally, at least until some of the others acknowledge what scum he is.
PS Greg it clearly only needs to be curtailed if the net effect is substantial, compared to historical experience and destructive. If there is a scientific case for either you should make it on your blog, rather than relying on assertion and having enough ecofascists around to keep up the obscenity level.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.