Click to get your own widget

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Neither Greenland Nor Anywhere Else Melting - Scotsman Letter

  This letter in the Scotsman today.
For anybody worried that there might be some justification to alarmist claims of Greenland melting a peer reviewed paper confirms melting "not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961."`So not only less than medieval and 5,000BC warmings, but not more serious than the 1930s.

Antarctic ice, 10 times that of the Arctic, is growing.
Moreton and Turnball (letter Tues) picked up my error of saying that the warmists had falsely claimed 12% of Greenland melted instead of 15%.
The none-trivial bit is that neither is true. In turn, Mr Turnball should answer a question I asked him here previously. From among the 60% not paid by the state can be name a single, scientist, anywhere who supports the widely advertised catastrophic warming "consensus"?
Al Gore claimed, untruthfully, massive sea level rises had already taken place and that they would shortly reach 20 feet. He is in Scotland shortly, along with Chris Huhne and Alex Salmond to congratulate us on having the worlds most destructive CO2 regulations, requiring the destruction of 80% of our electricity supply and economy over the next 8 years.
Gore has managed to avoid ever having to answer any serious questions while talking such obvious nonsense as that smoking causes global warming and that 2,000m down is millions of degrees. Really.
I trust Moreton and Turnball's eye for detail, and indeed the massed Scottish media will, equal to me, seek his acknowledgement of such glaring alarmist inanities

Refs - publisher confirms origin of the 15% nonsense

reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1784–2009 was done by Oliver W. Frauenfeld

Antarctic Ice growing

Gore's "inconvenient truth" untruths

" says smoking causes global warming

" says lava millions of degrees
  It is interesting that both Moreton and Turnball made no attempt to argue that Greenland was melting or on any part of the warming scam but simply saying I had "erroneously" said the error was 12% rather than 15%. I don't know if the use of that word is coincidence though if they got together to make the same obviously trivial mistake that would seem a tactical error. The original letter had contained both the figures 12 and 15 and I regret reading it without due diligence. However complaining of underestimating the degree of inanity of alarmists suggests they are both desperate to disagree sceptics and unable to find anything important on which they can do so without being obviously wrong.
     When I write to papers I always try not merely to defend my position but to carry the argument to the enemy. Defence followed by counter-attack wins battles, defence alone doesn't.
      In this case I carried the offence to Al Gore, whose errors are, to mine, like a mountain to a molehill. as Dellors points out.
     My question about whether the Scottish media will even attempt to ask him, or any ecofascist, any difficult questions about the inane lies he has told seems to have been answered by the removal of my mention of the most ridiculous of these lies |(leaving the word "really" as unconnected to its element as a beached whale). This is poor poor editing, particularly since the Scotsman had already asked me to cut down my original draft from 450 words to 250.
   Basically if you are Al Gore you can tell absolutely any lie in the interest of making yourself a crony capitalist billionaire and you will get a Nobel, described as having "got the science mostly right" by Al Gore, as much space as you want in the MSM to lie and an almost total suppression of any media urge to real journalism.
    Ah well we all know the game is fixed but if you don't play you can't'win.

Labels: , ,

Once again the anti-science jihadist gets his facts wrong and goes back to his stupid challenge, which has been met again and again and again.

Just like you lied about King.

Just like you lied about no answers to your idiot questions.

You're a liar, Mr. Craig, and you know it.
And you Mr Anonymous are a coward hiding behind the anonymous label. Is that because you have nothing to say because you know nothing of science?
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.