Sunday, October 02, 2011
"Dr" Stephen Moreton Refuses to Verify His Claim; "Professor" Greg Evans Certainly Deliberately Lied - Awaiting Any Honest Warming Alarmist
Following the Scotsman's decision not to publish either letter I made in reply to Stephen Moreton's announcement that he is the sole scientist anywhere in the world who supports catastrophic warming I contacted him. This is a fisk of his response (my comments in bold)., headed by my repetition of the request on Friday
----------------------------
Mr Moreton I note that you still have declined to answer my question regarding your publicly alleged not being ultimately paid by the government.
I note you have made no attempt to clarify your repeated claim that somebody paid by a government paid organisation is not ultimately being paid by the government. That claim is clearly false.
If you choose to continue to refuse to answer the obvious assumption is that you are indeed ultimately paid by the government despite your claims. This is not the first time someone claiming to be an alarmist scientist not paid by the state has been found to be less than truthful.
If you refuse to come clean journalistic standards must require the Scotsman to check your claim and if it is not factual to say so or allow me to produce a letter saying so.
Until this is proven either way the default assumption must be that not only is there not a single independent scientist anywhere in the world who believes in the catastrophic warming scam but that those promoting the scam have repeatedly shown that they are willing to tell any lie whatsoever to push it.
original message
Dear Mr Craig,
.....You are not the only one whose letters don’t get published. My brilliant ripostes frequently fail to make it into print, or are edited (sometimes badly) if they do. The Scotsman is worse than the Courier, although the latter failed to print my reply to your last one there in which you scraped the Oregon Petition out of your barrel. After reading my reply (copied below) you will probably be thankful it was not printed, and you will never dare cite that worthless piece of rubbish again. Never mind, plenty of other deniers have been taken in by it so I’m sure I’ll get another chance to debunk it.
As for “catastrophic” warming much depends on what you call “catastrophic”. James Lovelock, of Gaia fame, is about as independent of anyone and anything it is possible to get, and he takes a particularly apocalyptic view of global warming. (So there’s another non-government scientist for you.)
Lovelock is interesting in that when I first asked this question he was the only person named by the environment correspondent of the Independent. When I asked on hundreds of other sites worldwide the only person to give a factual answer was somebody on a South African site who named Professor Lovelock. In fact, since seeing the climategate fraud he has reversed his opinion suggesting alarmism is not "sane" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have-kept-us-sane.html It is understandable you do not know this since media coverage has not come close to matching the coverage of his previous opinion.
I would regard a redistribution of rainfall over large tracts of the planet’s surface, the resulting disruptions to agriculture, wildlife, the environment, the acidification of the oceans, and even one meter of sea-level rise (even if it takes centuries), and the inundation of densely populated coastal regions, as “catastrophic”. Wouldn’t you?
One such redistribution was what made the Sahara so fertile during the Climate Optimum that there are cave paintings in its centre depicting hippopotamus. If any such disruption did not reduce crop yields more than the 25% increased CO2 appears to have raised them then that is not a net loss.There are regional variations in the ocean already far greater than any change credibly proposed. In fact you should not speak of "acidification" of oceans but of neutralisation since they are currently marginally alkaline. Is there any evidence that a change of 0.o1 ph would be catastrophic? I think the Dutch have shown, with horse and cart technology, how a rise of 1 metre, or considerably more, need not be "catastrophic" even over centuries, don't you?
As for non-government-funded scientists, a number of things come to mind, namely:
I can’t understand why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this. Just what is your point? It seems like some sort of conspiracy theory, in which case my published letter exposes it as nonsense.
Scientists working in industry are not government-funded. They are paid by their employers, whether their employers get government subsidies, or not. And there are industrial scientists a plenty who accept the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) whether they are engaged in relevant research or not, and whether their employers receive government money, or not (most don’t).
Nearly all professional bodies accept the seriousness of AGW, but are not government funded. They get their income from members’ subscriptions. Like the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which I am a member. Whilst I have seen an occasional letter from a denier in their magazine, “Chemistry World”, most writers on the topic take the majority view, whether they hail from academia, industry, or retirement. If such societies were not representing their members when they made statements on AGW you can be sure their members would make their disagreement known.
Scientists are well known for speaking their minds, whether politicians want to hear them or not. So any idea that they toe the line on AGW to keep their paymasters sweet is just daft. Any scientist who could disprove AGW would be famous, in line for a Nobel prize, and rich from the lecture circuit and book royalties that followed. Any journal that published such a paradigm-changing paper would see its circulation and reputation soar. People who think scientists are just saying what politicians want to hear do not understand how science works.
“AGW is false” is what politicians would actually love to hear, the exact opposite of what the scientists are saying. After all, raising taxes, raising energy prices, and imposing further burdens on industry in these hard times is hardly a vote winner. Anyone who thinks politicians want to promote AGW is nuts. Yet that is what some deniers claim.
Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is often the most likely. The simplest explanation for why most scientists are concerned that AGW is a threat is because that is what the evidence says.
1 - You should look at your compatriot's dismissal of research funded by the tobacco industry of research showing tobacco does not cause lung cancer. In this case your compatriots were largely right.
2 - If the funds come from government they are government funded. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" Incidentally the OECD found a net negative correlation between government funding of science and useful research.
3 - I don't know about yours but the Royal Society gets £45 million from government. They cannot be considered impartial on things their paymaster wants.
4 - An example of a scientist of considerable eminence who felt it impossible to speak her mind before retiring. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/01/funding-used-to-suppress-warming.html
5 - They are promoting it. It does give them cover for raising taxes and regulating us. I know of no elected politician who has said that they intend to raise taxes without such an excuse.If you look at the funding (eg £450 million a year to NERC) it is impossible to conclude that politicians have not been pushing this. If you doubt that politicians are supporting this read the transcript here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/27/guilty-men-and-guilty-women.html
Occam's Razor is precisely why any real scientist must require the alarmists to prove that complex catastrophic increases in global temperature, outwith historical experience are happening even though, currently, they aren't..
For a long time I kept out of the AGW debate, sticking to my usual hobby horse – bashing religion, especially creationism. But when I did finally start looking at both sides, spurred in part by the awful “Great Global Warming Swindle” film, I found the same pattern of misleading and phoney arguments employed by the deniers that I was used to seeing amongst creationists. Cherry-picking, nit-picking, misrepresenting, conspiracy theories, bogus “experts”, and so forth
Has there not been considerable cherry picking among alarmists. eg Joneses "hide the decline"
Just recently I have had to deal with the endlessly recurring bullshit claim that global warming stopped in 1998, a year with an exceptional el niño effect. In print and on the forum (where I post as “steve660”) I have tried to patiently explain how to handle graphical data, the importance of taking into account confounding factors, and why it is stupid to start at an outlying point like 1998. But it all falls on deaf ears/blind eyes.
Yet in 1998 no alarmist suggested that that year's warming was not part of the trend and indeed if Hansen's 0.4 C a decade had not been false it would have had to have been.
And there’s the feeble attempt to rebut the existence of a consensus by referring to an article by Lawrence Solomon in which he totally misses the point of the paper by Doran and Zimmerman he attacks. I have lost count of the number of times that one has popped up in the Scotsman forum. It seems to never die no matter how many times, or in how much detail, I, or others, explain where Solomon has gone wrong. And so on and on, for fallacy after fallacy. Truly it is like arguing with creationists (which I have been doing since my student days in Edinburgh 30 years ago).
And you are no exception. Roy Turnbull did a good job of showing up your misrepresentation of Greenland ice melting research,
We will disagree on that. I don't think he did and indeed there is no dispute that the Atlas' Greenland claims were wholly false.
and my unpublished letter to the Courier exposes the ridiculous Oregon petition. Now you refer to the Medieval warm period. More denier nonsense that has been debunked to death yet, like the heads of the hydra, no matter how often it gets decapitated, it keeps popping up again.
The Medieval warm period was warm in the North Atlantic region, but not elsewhere. It was not global. Globally, the earth is warmer now, than then. Another denier myth destroyed by beautiful facts. But such niceties are lost on the deniers in their quest to cherry-pick and misrepresent the data to fit their conspiracy theories.
That is not true. It is a claim based on the lack of written records from Australia etc for which there are other obvious reasons. There are records of it in China.
Maybe you could try checking your claims before sending them to the papers. It might save you the kind of drubbing Roy Turnbull gave you. A good place to start is skepticalscience.com, which has most of the common denier arguments listed, along with answers. Or you could watch some of the many entertaining videos on youtube by Potholer54, greenman3610, and others.
"Skeptical Science" has been reduced to censorship. It thus cannot be considered scientific. This has been discussed on Bishop Hill, a site I would thoroughly recommend to you if you want intelligent debate. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
You say you, “genuinely do find it difficult to understand how an unbiased observer can conclude, if you do, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming”. Simple, I follow the evidence, and also what those more knowledgeable than I (i.e. climate scientists) say. I find it difficult to understand how any scientifically literate person can deny AGW, catastrophic or otherwise. But, as most deniers are not scientifically literate, I should not be too surprised about them.
Sincerely
Stephen Moreton
So what is the evidence that convinces you we see catastrophic warming?
Unpublished letter to the Courier, 14 September 2011
So Neil Craig has been unable to find “a single scientist who supports the catastrophic warming scare and is not paid by government” (14 September). Well now he has – me.
He may object that, as an industrial chemist, my work is not in climatology. But that is true of nearly all the “scientists” on the infamous Oregon Petition, which he enthusiastically cites.
I do not and never have made that objection. To understand that fraud is going on all that is necessary is to understand the scientific method and for that you only need to be a scientist (I would make an exception for self described scientists such as "astrology scientists","creation scientists", most "political scientists", "anthropology scientists" and many "economists").
To join this petition one merely has to claim to have a science degree, and fill in a form. One does not have to be a practicing scientist, let alone a climatologist. Or actually have a science degree. Irrelevant subjects like dentistry, surgery and engineering are included.
The boss of the IPCC is a railway engineer. Have you publicly disputed his qualification in the same way?
This, perhaps, explains why it contains pop and film celebrities, duplicate entries, spoof entries, dead people and commercial companies. Only a few hundred have any background relevant to climate science. And, when 30 of these were checked, only 11 said they still agreed with it.
As there are around 63 million scientists in the world, Mr Craig’s 0.05 % of mostly irrelevantly qualified ones is a joke. When the views of the top climate scientists are polled, the consensus exceeds 97 %.
No wonder this worthless petition is widely ignored. It deserves to be.
Now who is cherry picking. The "97%" was of a selected group of a selected group of a selected group of government funded "climate scientists". If your objection to the Oregon petition, that it contains only a tiny proportion of scientists, is genuine you must acknowledge that it still vastly exceeds the numbers signed up on which the self styled "consensus" is built.
Particularly since you say that people paid by organisations paid by government do not count as paid by government I must ask for some supporting evidence that you are in no such way indirectly paid by the state. Great claims require great evidence (something alarmists should bear in mind) and if you are claiming to be the only scientist worldwide (apart from Greg Laden on "scienceblogs who is a liar) who is not paid by the state yet supports catastrophism then it is reasonable to ask for real evidence.
Neil Craig
--------------------------------------
The other alarmist scientist to claim to be the only scientist anywhere in the world to support CAGW is assistant anthropology teacher Greg Laden referred to on Friday. His response has not been to attempt to dispute the facts, nor to make any excuse but to say that he is permanently censoring me. Most of the "scienceblogs" sites have, unsurprisingly, made similar decisions.
For every "scientist" within a particular subgroup to be a complete liar, is obviously incompatible with them having any respect whatsoever for the truth let alone any scientific principles.The ecofascists have sunk to new lows. There are no circumstances whatsoever under which anybody supporting CAGW claiming to be a scientist or indeed political leader, who is not a corrupt liar, can refuse to condemn such liars.
This is an absolute touchstone to their integrity. Scienceblogs have clearly failed it and I very much doubt if there are more than a handful of CAGW supporters, "environmentalists" or main party politicians who will not prove to be equally personally lacking in any slightest trace of personal integrity.
But I am willing to publish a response from Mr Moreton if he feels he could usefully do so, or indeed from any alarmist who feels able to condemn dishonesty or indeed put a credible case for warming. We shall see.
----------------------------
Mr Moreton I note that you still have declined to answer my question regarding your publicly alleged not being ultimately paid by the government.
I note you have made no attempt to clarify your repeated claim that somebody paid by a government paid organisation is not ultimately being paid by the government. That claim is clearly false.
If you choose to continue to refuse to answer the obvious assumption is that you are indeed ultimately paid by the government despite your claims. This is not the first time someone claiming to be an alarmist scientist not paid by the state has been found to be less than truthful.
If you refuse to come clean journalistic standards must require the Scotsman to check your claim and if it is not factual to say so or allow me to produce a letter saying so.
Until this is proven either way the default assumption must be that not only is there not a single independent scientist anywhere in the world who believes in the catastrophic warming scam but that those promoting the scam have repeatedly shown that they are willing to tell any lie whatsoever to push it.
original message
Dear Mr Craig,
.....You are not the only one whose letters don’t get published. My brilliant ripostes frequently fail to make it into print, or are edited (sometimes badly) if they do. The Scotsman is worse than the Courier, although the latter failed to print my reply to your last one there in which you scraped the Oregon Petition out of your barrel. After reading my reply (copied below) you will probably be thankful it was not printed, and you will never dare cite that worthless piece of rubbish again. Never mind, plenty of other deniers have been taken in by it so I’m sure I’ll get another chance to debunk it.
As for “catastrophic” warming much depends on what you call “catastrophic”. James Lovelock, of Gaia fame, is about as independent of anyone and anything it is possible to get, and he takes a particularly apocalyptic view of global warming. (So there’s another non-government scientist for you.)
Lovelock is interesting in that when I first asked this question he was the only person named by the environment correspondent of the Independent. When I asked on hundreds of other sites worldwide the only person to give a factual answer was somebody on a South African site who named Professor Lovelock. In fact, since seeing the climategate fraud he has reversed his opinion suggesting alarmism is not "sane" http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have-kept-us-sane.html It is understandable you do not know this since media coverage has not come close to matching the coverage of his previous opinion.
I would regard a redistribution of rainfall over large tracts of the planet’s surface, the resulting disruptions to agriculture, wildlife, the environment, the acidification of the oceans, and even one meter of sea-level rise (even if it takes centuries), and the inundation of densely populated coastal regions, as “catastrophic”. Wouldn’t you?
One such redistribution was what made the Sahara so fertile during the Climate Optimum that there are cave paintings in its centre depicting hippopotamus. If any such disruption did not reduce crop yields more than the 25% increased CO2 appears to have raised them then that is not a net loss.There are regional variations in the ocean already far greater than any change credibly proposed. In fact you should not speak of "acidification" of oceans but of neutralisation since they are currently marginally alkaline. Is there any evidence that a change of 0.o1 ph would be catastrophic? I think the Dutch have shown, with horse and cart technology, how a rise of 1 metre, or considerably more, need not be "catastrophic" even over centuries, don't you?
As for non-government-funded scientists, a number of things come to mind, namely:
I can’t understand why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this. Just what is your point? It seems like some sort of conspiracy theory, in which case my published letter exposes it as nonsense.
Scientists working in industry are not government-funded. They are paid by their employers, whether their employers get government subsidies, or not. And there are industrial scientists a plenty who accept the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) whether they are engaged in relevant research or not, and whether their employers receive government money, or not (most don’t).
Nearly all professional bodies accept the seriousness of AGW, but are not government funded. They get their income from members’ subscriptions. Like the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which I am a member. Whilst I have seen an occasional letter from a denier in their magazine, “Chemistry World”, most writers on the topic take the majority view, whether they hail from academia, industry, or retirement. If such societies were not representing their members when they made statements on AGW you can be sure their members would make their disagreement known.
Scientists are well known for speaking their minds, whether politicians want to hear them or not. So any idea that they toe the line on AGW to keep their paymasters sweet is just daft. Any scientist who could disprove AGW would be famous, in line for a Nobel prize, and rich from the lecture circuit and book royalties that followed. Any journal that published such a paradigm-changing paper would see its circulation and reputation soar. People who think scientists are just saying what politicians want to hear do not understand how science works.
“AGW is false” is what politicians would actually love to hear, the exact opposite of what the scientists are saying. After all, raising taxes, raising energy prices, and imposing further burdens on industry in these hard times is hardly a vote winner. Anyone who thinks politicians want to promote AGW is nuts. Yet that is what some deniers claim.
Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is often the most likely. The simplest explanation for why most scientists are concerned that AGW is a threat is because that is what the evidence says.
1 - You should look at your compatriot's dismissal of research funded by the tobacco industry of research showing tobacco does not cause lung cancer. In this case your compatriots were largely right.
2 - If the funds come from government they are government funded. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" Incidentally the OECD found a net negative correlation between government funding of science and useful research.
3 - I don't know about yours but the Royal Society gets £45 million from government. They cannot be considered impartial on things their paymaster wants.
4 - An example of a scientist of considerable eminence who felt it impossible to speak her mind before retiring. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/01/funding-used-to-suppress-warming.html
5 - They are promoting it. It does give them cover for raising taxes and regulating us. I know of no elected politician who has said that they intend to raise taxes without such an excuse.If you look at the funding (eg £450 million a year to NERC) it is impossible to conclude that politicians have not been pushing this. If you doubt that politicians are supporting this read the transcript here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/27/guilty-men-and-guilty-women.html
Occam's Razor is precisely why any real scientist must require the alarmists to prove that complex catastrophic increases in global temperature, outwith historical experience are happening even though, currently, they aren't..
For a long time I kept out of the AGW debate, sticking to my usual hobby horse – bashing religion, especially creationism. But when I did finally start looking at both sides, spurred in part by the awful “Great Global Warming Swindle” film, I found the same pattern of misleading and phoney arguments employed by the deniers that I was used to seeing amongst creationists. Cherry-picking, nit-picking, misrepresenting, conspiracy theories, bogus “experts”, and so forth
Has there not been considerable cherry picking among alarmists. eg Joneses "hide the decline"
Just recently I have had to deal with the endlessly recurring bullshit claim that global warming stopped in 1998, a year with an exceptional el niño effect. In print and on the forum (where I post as “steve660”) I have tried to patiently explain how to handle graphical data, the importance of taking into account confounding factors, and why it is stupid to start at an outlying point like 1998. But it all falls on deaf ears/blind eyes.
Yet in 1998 no alarmist suggested that that year's warming was not part of the trend and indeed if Hansen's 0.4 C a decade had not been false it would have had to have been.
And there’s the feeble attempt to rebut the existence of a consensus by referring to an article by Lawrence Solomon in which he totally misses the point of the paper by Doran and Zimmerman he attacks. I have lost count of the number of times that one has popped up in the Scotsman forum. It seems to never die no matter how many times, or in how much detail, I, or others, explain where Solomon has gone wrong. And so on and on, for fallacy after fallacy. Truly it is like arguing with creationists (which I have been doing since my student days in Edinburgh 30 years ago).
And you are no exception. Roy Turnbull did a good job of showing up your misrepresentation of Greenland ice melting research,
We will disagree on that. I don't think he did and indeed there is no dispute that the Atlas' Greenland claims were wholly false.
and my unpublished letter to the Courier exposes the ridiculous Oregon petition. Now you refer to the Medieval warm period. More denier nonsense that has been debunked to death yet, like the heads of the hydra, no matter how often it gets decapitated, it keeps popping up again.
The Medieval warm period was warm in the North Atlantic region, but not elsewhere. It was not global. Globally, the earth is warmer now, than then. Another denier myth destroyed by beautiful facts. But such niceties are lost on the deniers in their quest to cherry-pick and misrepresent the data to fit their conspiracy theories.
That is not true. It is a claim based on the lack of written records from Australia etc for which there are other obvious reasons. There are records of it in China.
Maybe you could try checking your claims before sending them to the papers. It might save you the kind of drubbing Roy Turnbull gave you. A good place to start is skepticalscience.com, which has most of the common denier arguments listed, along with answers. Or you could watch some of the many entertaining videos on youtube by Potholer54, greenman3610, and others.
"Skeptical Science" has been reduced to censorship. It thus cannot be considered scientific. This has been discussed on Bishop Hill, a site I would thoroughly recommend to you if you want intelligent debate. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
You say you, “genuinely do find it difficult to understand how an unbiased observer can conclude, if you do, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming”. Simple, I follow the evidence, and also what those more knowledgeable than I (i.e. climate scientists) say. I find it difficult to understand how any scientifically literate person can deny AGW, catastrophic or otherwise. But, as most deniers are not scientifically literate, I should not be too surprised about them.
Sincerely
Stephen Moreton
So what is the evidence that convinces you we see catastrophic warming?
Unpublished letter to the Courier, 14 September 2011
So Neil Craig has been unable to find “a single scientist who supports the catastrophic warming scare and is not paid by government” (14 September). Well now he has – me.
He may object that, as an industrial chemist, my work is not in climatology. But that is true of nearly all the “scientists” on the infamous Oregon Petition, which he enthusiastically cites.
I do not and never have made that objection. To understand that fraud is going on all that is necessary is to understand the scientific method and for that you only need to be a scientist (I would make an exception for self described scientists such as "astrology scientists","creation scientists", most "political scientists", "anthropology scientists" and many "economists").
To join this petition one merely has to claim to have a science degree, and fill in a form. One does not have to be a practicing scientist, let alone a climatologist. Or actually have a science degree. Irrelevant subjects like dentistry, surgery and engineering are included.
The boss of the IPCC is a railway engineer. Have you publicly disputed his qualification in the same way?
This, perhaps, explains why it contains pop and film celebrities, duplicate entries, spoof entries, dead people and commercial companies. Only a few hundred have any background relevant to climate science. And, when 30 of these were checked, only 11 said they still agreed with it.
As there are around 63 million scientists in the world, Mr Craig’s 0.05 % of mostly irrelevantly qualified ones is a joke. When the views of the top climate scientists are polled, the consensus exceeds 97 %.
No wonder this worthless petition is widely ignored. It deserves to be.
Now who is cherry picking. The "97%" was of a selected group of a selected group of a selected group of government funded "climate scientists". If your objection to the Oregon petition, that it contains only a tiny proportion of scientists, is genuine you must acknowledge that it still vastly exceeds the numbers signed up on which the self styled "consensus" is built.
Particularly since you say that people paid by organisations paid by government do not count as paid by government I must ask for some supporting evidence that you are in no such way indirectly paid by the state. Great claims require great evidence (something alarmists should bear in mind) and if you are claiming to be the only scientist worldwide (apart from Greg Laden on "scienceblogs who is a liar) who is not paid by the state yet supports catastrophism then it is reasonable to ask for real evidence.
Neil Craig
--------------------------------------
The other alarmist scientist to claim to be the only scientist anywhere in the world to support CAGW is assistant anthropology teacher Greg Laden referred to on Friday. His response has not been to attempt to dispute the facts, nor to make any excuse but to say that he is permanently censoring me. Most of the "scienceblogs" sites have, unsurprisingly, made similar decisions.
For every "scientist" within a particular subgroup to be a complete liar, is obviously incompatible with them having any respect whatsoever for the truth let alone any scientific principles.The ecofascists have sunk to new lows. There are no circumstances whatsoever under which anybody supporting CAGW claiming to be a scientist or indeed political leader, who is not a corrupt liar, can refuse to condemn such liars.
This is an absolute touchstone to their integrity. Scienceblogs have clearly failed it and I very much doubt if there are more than a handful of CAGW supporters, "environmentalists" or main party politicians who will not prove to be equally personally lacking in any slightest trace of personal integrity.
But I am willing to publish a response from Mr Moreton if he feels he could usefully do so, or indeed from any alarmist who feels able to condemn dishonesty or indeed put a credible case for warming. We shall see.
Labels: eco-fascism, Government parasitism, Media
Comments:
<< Home
What a complete buffoon you are, Mr. Craig.
You didn't even answer his point about the idiotic "Oregon Petition" but just switched the subject.
How about showing us where David King said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100??
Oh, right. You can't. You're a liar.
You didn't even answer his point about the idiotic "Oregon Petition" but just switched the subject.
How about showing us where David King said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100??
Oh, right. You can't. You're a liar.
# posted by 
: October 03, 2011
: October 03, 2011
I have only just stumbled across Mr Craig’s blog by chance and was surprised to learn that I was refusing to answer a question I was unaware I had been asked. Namely, his “question regarding your publicly alleged not being ultimately paid by the government”. Perhaps I could answer this if I knew what it meant. In its present form it is gibberish. If it helps then, for the record, I am employed as a research chemist in the chemical industry. My employers are a medium size, privately owned, international chemical company. They are a for-profit organisation and, like most private enterprises, receive no government subsidies or tax breaks. I am unaware of any of my colleagues (many of whom are also highly qualified and experienced industrial scientists) ever expressing any doubts about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The company takes its environmental responsibilities seriously and, whilst not engaged in climate research (why should they? it is not their line of business), is interested in reducing CO2 emissions, and in developing products with low carbon footprints. This would suggest that the company executives also take seriously AGW, or at the very least see low-carbon-footprint products as a business opportunity. In my nearly 22 years of experience in the chemical industry I have found this to be generally the case and I have yet to meet a fellow industrial scientist who doubts AGW (or if they do, they have not said).
I do not know why Mr Craig feels it necessary to put my title, “Dr”, in inverted commas. I graduated with a PhD in chemistry from the University of Edinburgh in 1989. Mr Craig is free to check this with the university if he wishes. I am not a climate scientist, nor even a scientist of any great note, just an average industrial chemist with some background also in the earth sciences. But Mr Craig only asked for non-government funded scientists, without reference to speciality. I note the worthless Oregon Petition, which he has fallen for, includes a great many non-climate “scientists”. In fact that is true of nearly all of them! And many don’t even have PhDs. But at least I have basic scientific literacy, and know how to handle data. Sadly this is not true of the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it doing the PRATT dance with Mr Craig (Points Refuted a Thousand Times). So rather than squander hours going over every tired old canard of his that has already been debunked ad nauseam, I’ll just make a few points and leave it at that.
Firstly he really needs to clarify what he considers “catastrophic” if he wants examples of scientists who accept “catastrophic” AGW. I touched upon this in my original reply where I said what I would consider “catastrophic”. (Craig’s replies are, of course, half-truths and nonsense but I’m not going to waste my time PRATT-dancing them, the real facts are easily enough looked up).
He ignores my point in my published letter (The Scotsman, 24 September 2011): “For non-state-funded climate scientists, who accept warming, he need only look at private universities like Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale.” And my point about BP, Shell and Chevron, whose websites make clear their support for AGW and that they are taking it very seriously indeed. Between them these should account for many non-government funded scientists.
He also ignores my point that US scientists, government-funded or not, continued to warn of the dangers of AGW even during the Bush administration, “even though it was the last thing the science-denying, tax-averse Republicans wanted to hear.” Like a creationist, Craig simply ignores anything that does not fit his conspiracy-theory mindset.
Stephen Moreton, 29 December, 2011.
I do not know why Mr Craig feels it necessary to put my title, “Dr”, in inverted commas. I graduated with a PhD in chemistry from the University of Edinburgh in 1989. Mr Craig is free to check this with the university if he wishes. I am not a climate scientist, nor even a scientist of any great note, just an average industrial chemist with some background also in the earth sciences. But Mr Craig only asked for non-government funded scientists, without reference to speciality. I note the worthless Oregon Petition, which he has fallen for, includes a great many non-climate “scientists”. In fact that is true of nearly all of them! And many don’t even have PhDs. But at least I have basic scientific literacy, and know how to handle data. Sadly this is not true of the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it doing the PRATT dance with Mr Craig (Points Refuted a Thousand Times). So rather than squander hours going over every tired old canard of his that has already been debunked ad nauseam, I’ll just make a few points and leave it at that.
Firstly he really needs to clarify what he considers “catastrophic” if he wants examples of scientists who accept “catastrophic” AGW. I touched upon this in my original reply where I said what I would consider “catastrophic”. (Craig’s replies are, of course, half-truths and nonsense but I’m not going to waste my time PRATT-dancing them, the real facts are easily enough looked up).
He ignores my point in my published letter (The Scotsman, 24 September 2011): “For non-state-funded climate scientists, who accept warming, he need only look at private universities like Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale.” And my point about BP, Shell and Chevron, whose websites make clear their support for AGW and that they are taking it very seriously indeed. Between them these should account for many non-government funded scientists.
He also ignores my point that US scientists, government-funded or not, continued to warn of the dangers of AGW even during the Bush administration, “even though it was the last thing the science-denying, tax-averse Republicans wanted to hear.” Like a creationist, Craig simply ignores anything that does not fit his conspiracy-theory mindset.
Stephen Moreton, 29 December, 2011.
# posted by : December 29, 2011
: December 29, 2011
Craig likes to throw around accusations of lying, which makes the following all the more ironic. He begins his piece with the gem, “Stephen Moreton's announcement that he is the sole scientist anywhere in the world who supports catastrophic warming”. As is blatantly obvious from my published and private correspondence on this matter, it is abundantly clear to all but the severely retarded that I am NOT the only (non-government-funded) scientist who takes this view. And I have never, ever announced I was the “sole” one.
Lovelock may have mellowed, but he still says, “It's almost certain that you can't put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening”. And,
“But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
If it’s as serious as a war, then I think that counts as “catastrophic”, unless Mr Craig thinks that the last war (WWII) that merited putting “democracy on hold” was not “catastrophic”.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock)
As for the remainder of Craig’s arguments, as I said, I have better things to do than waste hours doing the PRATT dance. The answers are out there for those prepared to do their homework, which, sadly, does not seem to include Neil Craig.
Stephen Moreton, 29 December, 2011.
Lovelock may have mellowed, but he still says, “It's almost certain that you can't put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening”. And,
“But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
If it’s as serious as a war, then I think that counts as “catastrophic”, unless Mr Craig thinks that the last war (WWII) that merited putting “democracy on hold” was not “catastrophic”.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock)
As for the remainder of Craig’s arguments, as I said, I have better things to do than waste hours doing the PRATT dance. The answers are out there for those prepared to do their homework, which, sadly, does not seem to include Neil Craig.
Stephen Moreton, 29 December, 2011.
# posted by : December 29, 2011
: December 29, 2011
Stephen Moreton's asertion that he "only just stumbled across" my blog is inconsistent with the fact that I emailed him a link to it on 2nd Oct.
Note that he has still not answered the question with any factual verifiable detail.
Putting inverted commas round "Dr" expresses no opinion as to whether the title is justified or not, since I have no verifiable information either way.
Warming alarmists have certainly previously laid claim to qualifications they did not have and laid claim to an independence from state funding they did not have. Perhaps Stephen would wish to express his revulsion of Greg Evans from "scienceblogs" for doing so - certainly any honest alarmsit would wish to.
I think the term "catastrophic" is normal English usage and does not bneed explanation. If no "catastrophe", or even serious damage is visible nobody honestly using normal English would describe it as catastrophic. Since Moreton has asserted in the article that he finds it "simple" to tell that "catastrophic warming" is taking place, because there is so much evidence for it, his claim now not to know what it is is clearly disingenouos.
Despite his 2 long comments here he has still to name a single scientist who is independent and supports claims of catastrophic warming. Of any scientific discipline - I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist". If there3 is no other then, by definition, he is the sole one. If he felt able to name another I think it reasonable to assume he would.
I have previously quoted Lovelo9ck and I do not accept Moreton's equating "nasty" and "catastrophic" as being the same is credible.
I have indeed already refuted, admitedly not 1,000 times, his assertion that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true. Big companies inevitabkly have a close relationship with government. The PR departments of such companies are not scientists.All his statement proves is that all those alarmists who claim to be opposing "Big Oil" are liars.
Since he is so indignant at my pointing out facts and asking questions of him, which he declined to answer. Thus he is honour bound to substantiate his own claim that "the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered" are both scientifically illiterate and don't understand data. I accept this disgraceful attack on all and sundry as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which he ever aspires.
If he possesses any trace of such honesty he will be able to provide many such names, together with evidence of their "illiteracy". If, as the sole identified "independent scientist" anywhere in the world claiming to believe in catastrophic warming, he has none, he won't. We shall see.
Note that he has still not answered the question with any factual verifiable detail.
Putting inverted commas round "Dr" expresses no opinion as to whether the title is justified or not, since I have no verifiable information either way.
Warming alarmists have certainly previously laid claim to qualifications they did not have and laid claim to an independence from state funding they did not have. Perhaps Stephen would wish to express his revulsion of Greg Evans from "scienceblogs" for doing so - certainly any honest alarmsit would wish to.
I think the term "catastrophic" is normal English usage and does not bneed explanation. If no "catastrophe", or even serious damage is visible nobody honestly using normal English would describe it as catastrophic. Since Moreton has asserted in the article that he finds it "simple" to tell that "catastrophic warming" is taking place, because there is so much evidence for it, his claim now not to know what it is is clearly disingenouos.
Despite his 2 long comments here he has still to name a single scientist who is independent and supports claims of catastrophic warming. Of any scientific discipline - I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist". If there3 is no other then, by definition, he is the sole one. If he felt able to name another I think it reasonable to assume he would.
I have previously quoted Lovelo9ck and I do not accept Moreton's equating "nasty" and "catastrophic" as being the same is credible.
I have indeed already refuted, admitedly not 1,000 times, his assertion that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true. Big companies inevitabkly have a close relationship with government. The PR departments of such companies are not scientists.All his statement proves is that all those alarmists who claim to be opposing "Big Oil" are liars.
Since he is so indignant at my pointing out facts and asking questions of him, which he declined to answer. Thus he is honour bound to substantiate his own claim that "the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered" are both scientifically illiterate and don't understand data. I accept this disgraceful attack on all and sundry as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which he ever aspires.
If he possesses any trace of such honesty he will be able to provide many such names, together with evidence of their "illiteracy". If, as the sole identified "independent scientist" anywhere in the world claiming to believe in catastrophic warming, he has none, he won't. We shall see.
Craig said: “I have previously quoted Lovelo9ck and I do not accept Moreton's equating "nasty" and "catastrophic" as being the same is credible.” Read my original post. The “nasty” quote was immediately followed by another in which Lovelock said he felt that climate change may be as serious as a war in which democracy had to be put on hold. The last time such a war happened was 1939-45. So, to Lovelock, “nasty” is as at least as serious as World War II. I think World War II counts as “catastrophic”, but perhaps Craig does not. The two quotes should be taken together to see what Lovelock had in mind by “nasty”. Note that Craig completely ignored the second quote.
Craig said: “I have indeed already refuted, admitedly not 1,000 times, his assertion that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true.” I have not said “that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true” I merely pointed out that (some) big oil companies clearly have in their ranks non-government scientists who fear AGW. I note Craig overlooks other “Big Oil” companies who have a history of funding the deniers, and the cosy relationship they have with the science-denying, tax-averse Republican Party. But, of course, like a true denier, Craig is not one to let such inconvenient facts get in the way of his grand conspiracy theory.
Craig said: “he is honour bound to substantiate his own claim that "the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered" are both scientifically illiterate and don't understand data.” I am not bound to substantiate anything to a man who is so consistently mendacious himself in his treatment of me here. But, since he asks, he need only pick at random any standard denier argument that has been PRATT-danced to death (like the ridiculous Oregon Petition) and see who is still repeating it. Anyone who continues to repeat such a thoroughly discredited argument is, I submit, either scientifically illiterate, or dishonest. Possibly both. Now who has a history of citing the Oregon Petition, Mr Craig? Other scientifically illiterate AGW deniers infest internet forums. On the “Scotsman” forum they include Isonomia, Calgacos, Nordic Warrior, Cynicus Unbound, CAGW, Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head and Geomac 1. That they regurgitate standard, well debunked, denier arguments is good evidence for scientific illiteracy on their part. These, and some others, are the ones I have encountered. Going beyond those I have crossed swords with, James Delingpole was memorably exposed as a scientific illiterate by “Horizon”. He was reduced to calling himself an “interpreter of interpretations”. On youtube, greenman3610’s regular “Climate denial crock of the week” is packed with examples of scientific illiteracy.
In my original private-email correspondence with Craig I tried patiently, and politely, to explain my position. As the above exchange makes clear he has responded with distortions of what I actually wrote, he twists my words, attributes to me positions I do not hold, or things I did not say. He ignores what I do say, tells lies, and yet has the chutzpah to question my honesty. If this is how he behaves then, as explained above, I see no point in continuing this debate with him here. He is not rational. I also understand how the beleaguered climate scientists must feel if they have to deal with this crap on an almost daily basis.
Craig said: “I have indeed already refuted, admitedly not 1,000 times, his assertion that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true.” I have not said “that the fact that Big Oil supports the alarmists proves it true” I merely pointed out that (some) big oil companies clearly have in their ranks non-government scientists who fear AGW. I note Craig overlooks other “Big Oil” companies who have a history of funding the deniers, and the cosy relationship they have with the science-denying, tax-averse Republican Party. But, of course, like a true denier, Craig is not one to let such inconvenient facts get in the way of his grand conspiracy theory.
Craig said: “he is honour bound to substantiate his own claim that "the great majority of climate change deniers I have encountered" are both scientifically illiterate and don't understand data.” I am not bound to substantiate anything to a man who is so consistently mendacious himself in his treatment of me here. But, since he asks, he need only pick at random any standard denier argument that has been PRATT-danced to death (like the ridiculous Oregon Petition) and see who is still repeating it. Anyone who continues to repeat such a thoroughly discredited argument is, I submit, either scientifically illiterate, or dishonest. Possibly both. Now who has a history of citing the Oregon Petition, Mr Craig? Other scientifically illiterate AGW deniers infest internet forums. On the “Scotsman” forum they include Isonomia, Calgacos, Nordic Warrior, Cynicus Unbound, CAGW, Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head and Geomac 1. That they regurgitate standard, well debunked, denier arguments is good evidence for scientific illiteracy on their part. These, and some others, are the ones I have encountered. Going beyond those I have crossed swords with, James Delingpole was memorably exposed as a scientific illiterate by “Horizon”. He was reduced to calling himself an “interpreter of interpretations”. On youtube, greenman3610’s regular “Climate denial crock of the week” is packed with examples of scientific illiteracy.
In my original private-email correspondence with Craig I tried patiently, and politely, to explain my position. As the above exchange makes clear he has responded with distortions of what I actually wrote, he twists my words, attributes to me positions I do not hold, or things I did not say. He ignores what I do say, tells lies, and yet has the chutzpah to question my honesty. If this is how he behaves then, as explained above, I see no point in continuing this debate with him here. He is not rational. I also understand how the beleaguered climate scientists must feel if they have to deal with this crap on an almost daily basis.
# posted by : January 05, 2012
: January 05, 2012
"Mendacious","scientifically illiterate" & "dishonest", assuming "Dr" Moreton is not a liar. Since (A) he could, if his claims were truthful, have easily long ago proven his claim not to be ultimately government funded were it true & (B) he does not consider himself "honour bound" to provide evidence for any claim he clearly is not.
Equally if he acrually believed his claim to knowing of any specific independent scientists who support the fraud he could easily have settled this long ago by naming them and providing supporting evidence. The fact that he does not feel honour bound to support his claims with facts proves his level of honesty.
As normal any "environmentalist" always descends to lying ad homs and ultimately censorship.
To the specific points he makes:
The Guardian claim clearly is incompatible with other things Lovelock has said, whih Moreton will not discuss. The Guardian is a corrupt and fascist propaganda sheet which has publicly admitted lying 40 times over the recent hacking story and has a long record of being willing to tell any lie to promote even such things as racial genocide & Nazism. If Moretonm has any evidence that the Guardian are in this case being infinitely more honest than normal he would feel honour bound to produce it if the concept had any meaning to him.
As for the Oregon Petition. I would be interested to know what his specific objection is. If he is saying the petition does not exist he is a liar. If he is saying it does not contain 31,000 scientist's signatures (probabkly far more now), far more than any such alarmist documant he is a liar. If he is saying both of those are true but it has no validity anyway he is a scientifically illiterate liar.
Mr Moreton you have, so far, proven to represent both the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody in the ecofascist movement aspires and a total lack of honesty. (Since you use the term "denier" which is both meaningless and deliberately offensive I assume you have no objection to being called an ecofascist or indeed econazi which are accurate)
Equally if he acrually believed his claim to knowing of any specific independent scientists who support the fraud he could easily have settled this long ago by naming them and providing supporting evidence. The fact that he does not feel honour bound to support his claims with facts proves his level of honesty.
As normal any "environmentalist" always descends to lying ad homs and ultimately censorship.
To the specific points he makes:
The Guardian claim clearly is incompatible with other things Lovelock has said, whih Moreton will not discuss. The Guardian is a corrupt and fascist propaganda sheet which has publicly admitted lying 40 times over the recent hacking story and has a long record of being willing to tell any lie to promote even such things as racial genocide & Nazism. If Moretonm has any evidence that the Guardian are in this case being infinitely more honest than normal he would feel honour bound to produce it if the concept had any meaning to him.
As for the Oregon Petition. I would be interested to know what his specific objection is. If he is saying the petition does not exist he is a liar. If he is saying it does not contain 31,000 scientist's signatures (probabkly far more now), far more than any such alarmist documant he is a liar. If he is saying both of those are true but it has no validity anyway he is a scientifically illiterate liar.
Mr Moreton you have, so far, proven to represent both the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody in the ecofascist movement aspires and a total lack of honesty. (Since you use the term "denier" which is both meaningless and deliberately offensive I assume you have no objection to being called an ecofascist or indeed econazi which are accurate)
I really had not intended to continue this pointless debate with a man I have come to view as a crank, but I see that circumstance has forced me to return. Craig’s blog limits the size of posts, so when I found that my last one was too large I split it in two. I posted the first portion, and then the second. I checked today and discovered that the first portion was missing, but the second was there. Predictably, Craig has replied to the second (presumably in ignorance of the first) with a load of hysterical insults and abuse. His belligerent and abusive tone is clear evidence of his instability, and hardly encourages me to want to engage with him here again.
I’m being generous and assuming that my missing post was down to a computer glitch, rather than action on Craig’s part. Doubtless, had it happened to him, his conspiracy-theorist mindset would have interpreted it as censorship by lying environmentalists, or some such nonsense. If he had bothered to think, before breaking into another dyslexic rant, he’d have noticed that the post he was responding to was incomplete. It had no introduction, and the point-by-point rebuttals began at a point part way through the post I was replying to.
So, coming up is the missing section of my post. If anyone has got this far, I invite you to read it all, including his insulting, hysterical responses, and ask yourself if you would even bother responding to such a man. I, for one, have lost patience with this idiot, and will not be posting here again.
I’m being generous and assuming that my missing post was down to a computer glitch, rather than action on Craig’s part. Doubtless, had it happened to him, his conspiracy-theorist mindset would have interpreted it as censorship by lying environmentalists, or some such nonsense. If he had bothered to think, before breaking into another dyslexic rant, he’d have noticed that the post he was responding to was incomplete. It had no introduction, and the point-by-point rebuttals began at a point part way through the post I was replying to.
So, coming up is the missing section of my post. If anyone has got this far, I invite you to read it all, including his insulting, hysterical responses, and ask yourself if you would even bother responding to such a man. I, for one, have lost patience with this idiot, and will not be posting here again.
# posted by : January 06, 2012
: January 06, 2012
The missing section:
I am reminded of a piece of advice I once read on a forum somewhere: “Don’t feed the trolls”. Good advice, as it turned out, as responding to them only gave them more words to twist, or ignore, and they never, ever could see how stupid they were being. With that in mind I will not waste precious time endlessly rebutting Craig’s assertions. I expect he’ll reply to this with another load of rubbish, and if I responded he’d reply again, and so on indefinitely. So this post will be my last word on this blog. Anyone approaching this with an open mind will see that he is completely nuts. He cherry-picks, and ignores, makes insinuations and attributes to me positions I never had, in his quest to cast aspersions on my integrity. So I’ll just deal with his latest post, and leave it at that. It will be my final post on the matter (albeit split in two because of size restrictions). He’ll never change his mind. He cannot. It is welded shut. And I have more important things to do with my time than wasting it on a crank.
Craig said: “I emailed him a link to it on 2nd Oct.” I cannot find this e-mail. Nor recollect it. It may have been lost in cyberspace, or deleted. Doubtless Craig will attach to this trivial circumstance some insinuation or other.
Craig said: “Note that he has still not answered the question with any factual verifiable detail.” A lie. My doctorate can be verified by asking the University of Edinburgh. That I work in industry can be verified by looking up some of my published works (articles & patents), which state my affiliations. A scientifically literate person would know this.
Craig said: “Putting inverted commas round "Dr" expresses no opinion as to whether the title is justified or not” so why do it? “since I have no verifiable information either way”. A lie – he can ask the University of Edinburgh. Perhaps he’d care to state what his scientific credentials are?
Craig said: “Despite his 2 long comments here he has still to name a single scientist who is independent and supports claims of catastrophic warming” A lie. I named James Lovelock, and in my published letter suggested independent universities, as well as certain oil companies, as likely places Craig could find more examples.
Craig said: “I think the term "catastrophic" is normal English usage and does not bneed explanation” Yes it does. What one person considers “catastrophic” another may not. It is a value judgement, and a matter of opinion. I have stated before what I would consider “catastrophic”, and this tallies with the many likely (>67% probability) negative consequences listed by (the late) Prof. Stephen Schneider on his website - a non-government-funded scientist I might add.
Craig said: “Since Moreton has asserted in the article that he finds it "simple" to tell that "catastrophic warming" is taking place, because there is so much evidence for it, his claim now not to know what it is is clearly disingenouos.” I have said no such things. Read it again, properly this time. I said it is “simple” to understand why I accept AGW, I did NOT say it was “simple” “to tell” (although it is hardly rocket science). And I have not claimed “not to know what it is is [sic]” either. Now who is being “disingenouos [sic]”? Twisting my words like this is not honest.
Craid said: “I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist".” I did not suggest he had thus denounced me. Craig is attributing to me a position I never held. More dishonesty. I merely anticipated a possible objection and pre-empted it, acknowledging that he had not asked for climate scientists. Craig must be getting desperate to come up with this.
I am reminded of a piece of advice I once read on a forum somewhere: “Don’t feed the trolls”. Good advice, as it turned out, as responding to them only gave them more words to twist, or ignore, and they never, ever could see how stupid they were being. With that in mind I will not waste precious time endlessly rebutting Craig’s assertions. I expect he’ll reply to this with another load of rubbish, and if I responded he’d reply again, and so on indefinitely. So this post will be my last word on this blog. Anyone approaching this with an open mind will see that he is completely nuts. He cherry-picks, and ignores, makes insinuations and attributes to me positions I never had, in his quest to cast aspersions on my integrity. So I’ll just deal with his latest post, and leave it at that. It will be my final post on the matter (albeit split in two because of size restrictions). He’ll never change his mind. He cannot. It is welded shut. And I have more important things to do with my time than wasting it on a crank.
Craig said: “I emailed him a link to it on 2nd Oct.” I cannot find this e-mail. Nor recollect it. It may have been lost in cyberspace, or deleted. Doubtless Craig will attach to this trivial circumstance some insinuation or other.
Craig said: “Note that he has still not answered the question with any factual verifiable detail.” A lie. My doctorate can be verified by asking the University of Edinburgh. That I work in industry can be verified by looking up some of my published works (articles & patents), which state my affiliations. A scientifically literate person would know this.
Craig said: “Putting inverted commas round "Dr" expresses no opinion as to whether the title is justified or not” so why do it? “since I have no verifiable information either way”. A lie – he can ask the University of Edinburgh. Perhaps he’d care to state what his scientific credentials are?
Craig said: “Despite his 2 long comments here he has still to name a single scientist who is independent and supports claims of catastrophic warming” A lie. I named James Lovelock, and in my published letter suggested independent universities, as well as certain oil companies, as likely places Craig could find more examples.
Craig said: “I think the term "catastrophic" is normal English usage and does not bneed explanation” Yes it does. What one person considers “catastrophic” another may not. It is a value judgement, and a matter of opinion. I have stated before what I would consider “catastrophic”, and this tallies with the many likely (>67% probability) negative consequences listed by (the late) Prof. Stephen Schneider on his website - a non-government-funded scientist I might add.
Craig said: “Since Moreton has asserted in the article that he finds it "simple" to tell that "catastrophic warming" is taking place, because there is so much evidence for it, his claim now not to know what it is is clearly disingenouos.” I have said no such things. Read it again, properly this time. I said it is “simple” to understand why I accept AGW, I did NOT say it was “simple” “to tell” (although it is hardly rocket science). And I have not claimed “not to know what it is is [sic]” either. Now who is being “disingenouos [sic]”? Twisting my words like this is not honest.
Craid said: “I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist".” I did not suggest he had thus denounced me. Craig is attributing to me a position I never held. More dishonesty. I merely anticipated a possible objection and pre-empted it, acknowledging that he had not asked for climate scientists. Craig must be getting desperate to come up with this.
# posted by : January 06, 2012
: January 06, 2012
Nothing but wind, bombast and ad homs from somebody who, if telling the truth, could simply prove his case by presenting evidence.
I note his most recent reply chooses not to say what his objection to the Oregon petition is - anybody who feels it proper to attack 10s of thousands of people without producing a shred of evidence is scum indeed.
On the points he makes - the "missing in the post" was old before email was invented. I have no reason to assume he is more honest in this than in everything else.
Stating my doctorate exists and you can go and find it as being indistinguishable from actually producing the evidence is clearly a lie.
It is a lie to say that putting inverted commas round something is automatically saying it is a lie rather than merely unknown. Is really the best this ecofascist liar is capable of?
Lying again - Lovelock is not a supporter of catastrophic warming, indeed he has said that sanity lies on the sceptics side and the undisputed link is in the article above thus Moreton has been made well aware of it.
The fact that he nonetheless clings to Lovelock, who calls him insane, as the sole independent scientist anywhere in the world supporting CAGW, when he knows it to be a lie shows how non-existent the econazi case is. If there was ANYBODY he could name them and provide the evidence.
The liar admits there is no evidence whatsoever of anything that would be generally recognised as catastrophic warming and is reduced to saying he has his own private meaning of the word "catastrophe". Presumably he also has his own private definition of "honesty", "liar", "theft" & "fascism". Obviously somebody who claims the right to redefine any word to mean whatever he wants it to is engaged in Newespeak not truthful debate.
Moreton denies he ever said he found it "simple" to show the validity of catastrophic warming. This, while representing the pinnacle of honesty to which he or any other ecofascist aspires is a lie - here are his words from the main article here.
"You say you, “genuinely do find it difficult to understand how an unbiased observer can conclude, if you do, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming”. Simple, I follow the evidence, and also what those more knowledgeable than I (i.e. climate scientists) say. I find it difficult to understand how any scientifically literate person can deny AGW, catastrophic or otherwise"
Of course he has repeatedly refused to produce any of this "evidence" he claims convinced him.
He says I am lying because I said “I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist".”
Well, as anybody reading here will now expect, he is lying again. I did not, as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist" & challenge him to produce the statement where he says I did.
I DO denounce him for being a wholly dishonest econazi parasite willing to tell any lie, no matter how obvious, in his Orwellian cause. He would certainly be denounced as such by the rest of the ecofascist movement were it not equally vile.
Post a Comment
I note his most recent reply chooses not to say what his objection to the Oregon petition is - anybody who feels it proper to attack 10s of thousands of people without producing a shred of evidence is scum indeed.
On the points he makes - the "missing in the post" was old before email was invented. I have no reason to assume he is more honest in this than in everything else.
Stating my doctorate exists and you can go and find it as being indistinguishable from actually producing the evidence is clearly a lie.
It is a lie to say that putting inverted commas round something is automatically saying it is a lie rather than merely unknown. Is really the best this ecofascist liar is capable of?
Lying again - Lovelock is not a supporter of catastrophic warming, indeed he has said that sanity lies on the sceptics side and the undisputed link is in the article above thus Moreton has been made well aware of it.
The fact that he nonetheless clings to Lovelock, who calls him insane, as the sole independent scientist anywhere in the world supporting CAGW, when he knows it to be a lie shows how non-existent the econazi case is. If there was ANYBODY he could name them and provide the evidence.
The liar admits there is no evidence whatsoever of anything that would be generally recognised as catastrophic warming and is reduced to saying he has his own private meaning of the word "catastrophe". Presumably he also has his own private definition of "honesty", "liar", "theft" & "fascism". Obviously somebody who claims the right to redefine any word to mean whatever he wants it to is engaged in Newespeak not truthful debate.
Moreton denies he ever said he found it "simple" to show the validity of catastrophic warming. This, while representing the pinnacle of honesty to which he or any other ecofascist aspires is a lie - here are his words from the main article here.
"You say you, “genuinely do find it difficult to understand how an unbiased observer can conclude, if you do, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming”. Simple, I follow the evidence, and also what those more knowledgeable than I (i.e. climate scientists) say. I find it difficult to understand how any scientifically literate person can deny AGW, catastrophic or otherwise"
Of course he has repeatedly refused to produce any of this "evidence" he claims convinced him.
He says I am lying because I said “I did not as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist".”
Well, as anybody reading here will now expect, he is lying again. I did not, as he suggests, denounce him for not being a "climate scientist" & challenge him to produce the statement where he says I did.
I DO denounce him for being a wholly dishonest econazi parasite willing to tell any lie, no matter how obvious, in his Orwellian cause. He would certainly be denounced as such by the rest of the ecofascist movement were it not equally vile.
<< Home
