Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Global Warming Alarmists Throwing in the Towel
The Met Office have decided that we are facing global cooling (again). Suddenly they never heard of warming.
Such scare stories go round and round and have done for over a century. How long will it be before the ecofascists and government parasites are trying to bully us with a new cooling scam, like the one in the 1970s?
BBC Radio Scotland reported it too and I sent them this bit of sarcasm. No answer yet.:
The other news that proves, from a political rather than "scientific" position, that warming alarmism is in fast retreat is George Osborne's speech at Tory Conference in which he said , near the end
I am certain Osborne knows that we could get out of recession within days, simply by getting rid of all this Luddism and would like to do at least something in that direction but that the Pseudoliberals and Cameron, the Pseudo Conservative would not allow it.
However they clearly know they have been caught lying and thieving for years and are engaged in a rearguard action.
Our job is to keep at them and to prevent them rallying around some new ecofascist scare story such as global cooling again, continuing the century and a half of such alternating warming and cooling "hobgoblins".
BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.
And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.Not a word about catastrophic warming. You would think the Met Office and the press hadn't spent 20 years telling us that warming was producing massive sea level rise, drought, warmth, disease, famine plagues of locusts, boils and the death of the first born.
... research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters...
The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.
.... ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month....
The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.
Such scare stories go round and round and have done for over a century. How long will it be before the ecofascists and government parasites are trying to bully us with a new cooling scam, like the one in the 1970s?
BBC Radio Scotland reported it too and I sent them this bit of sarcasm. No answer yet.:
Re Radio Scotland's 4 o'clock news report today of the Met Office admitting that we are heading for even colder winters.
I wish to protest. The BBC have spent £140,000 hiring one of their own to make an impartial report saying that there should never be any attempt to balance news confirming the BBC's official position that catastrophic warming is more widely accepted than the law of gravity. Clearly it is wholly improper for the BBC to report the Met Office admission which is wholly counter to your official truth.
Next thing we will have the BBC saying that the BBC reports, over more than a dozen years, that we are experiencing catastrophic warming & that children born in recent years have never seen snow, were untrue. These claims unquestionably represent the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody at the BBC ever aspires and it is quite improper of the BBC to report something which proves they are all lies told to promote dishonest government scare propaganda.
Even though it is.
This disgraceful lapse into factual reporting by the BBC was not seriously mitigated by the decision, over a later item, to have a Green politician on. Legally the BBC is required to show balance, particularly in party issues yet gives 40 times more coverage, compared to voting strength (virtually all supportive) compared to UKIP (virtually all negative) and once again we see Green politicians and their scare stories being promoted with no slightest attempt to invite a balancing speaker for rationality. Maintaining this tradition of party bias, lying scare stories and contempt for legality and democracy is entirely in the BBC's tradition, but hardly enough. I trust this brief and minor lapse. only on radio, towards reporting the truth will not be repeated.---------------------------------------------
Neil Craig"
The other news that proves, from a political rather than "scientific" position, that warming alarmism is in fast retreat is George Osborne's speech at Tory Conference in which he said , near the end
Britain makes up less than 2% of the world’s carbon emissions to China and America’s 40%.Not a change sufficient to eliminate or even much reduce the political parasitic load put on the economy but a 180 degree change in direction which is a considerable start. Also encouraging is Chris Huhnes response to it which was that he never wanted anything different.
We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business.
So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.
That’s what I’ve insisted on in the recent carbon budget.
I am certain Osborne knows that we could get out of recession within days, simply by getting rid of all this Luddism and would like to do at least something in that direction but that the Pseudoliberals and Cameron, the Pseudo Conservative would not allow it.
However they clearly know they have been caught lying and thieving for years and are engaged in a rearguard action.
Our job is to keep at them and to prevent them rallying around some new ecofascist scare story such as global cooling again, continuing the century and a half of such alternating warming and cooling "hobgoblins".
Labels: British politics, eco-fascism, global warming
Comments:
<< Home
Neil Craig again shows his epic incompetence.
Regional trends tell us nothing about global ones.
Once again we see the effects of
(a) having never produced a science article
(b) having never even *read* a science article.
So we can now assume that *Nature* is a credible source of climate science, yes?
You just shot yourself so thoroughly in the foot, Mr. Craig, even as you continually waste your life away in this insane anti-science jihad.
Scienceblogs Skip
Regional trends tell us nothing about global ones.
Once again we see the effects of
(a) having never produced a science article
(b) having never even *read* a science article.
So we can now assume that *Nature* is a credible source of climate science, yes?
You just shot yourself so thoroughly in the foot, Mr. Craig, even as you continually waste your life away in this insane anti-science jihad.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by 
: October 13, 2011
: October 13, 2011
Signing your nom de plume this time skip. How very brave. You continue to represent the very highest standrd of integrity to be found among "peer" reviewed climate scientists published in the finest journals (I assume that doesn't include Nature ;-) )
How glad you must be that we sceptics do not practice the censorship on which "climate science", "environmentalism, fascism and "scienceblogs" depend.
That is because free debate is the best way to show up the difference between honest scientists and lying, thieving charlatans such as yourselves. No offence.
How glad you must be that we sceptics do not practice the censorship on which "climate science", "environmentalism, fascism and "scienceblogs" depend.
That is because free debate is the best way to show up the difference between honest scientists and lying, thieving charlatans such as yourselves. No offence.
None taken.
I see your "standrds[sic]" of intellectual inquiry haven't changed.
I never claimed to be a climate scientist, Mr. Craig. But like so many of the simplest truths this one eludes you.
I also see you have never recanted your blatant lie about David King and Antarctica-and that is indeed the the *standard* of honesty to which anti-science fanatics such as yourself aspire: Lying whenever you feel like it and then lying again and again in the face of refutation.
But keep us laughing, Mr. I-don't-know-what-statistical-significance-is-or-the-difference-between-regional-and-global-trends-but-I-still-know-more-than-the-experts.
I see your "standrds[sic]" of intellectual inquiry haven't changed.
I never claimed to be a climate scientist, Mr. Craig. But like so many of the simplest truths this one eludes you.
I also see you have never recanted your blatant lie about David King and Antarctica-and that is indeed the the *standard* of honesty to which anti-science fanatics such as yourself aspire: Lying whenever you feel like it and then lying again and again in the face of refutation.
But keep us laughing, Mr. I-don't-know-what-statistical-significance-is-or-the-difference-between-regional-and-global-trends-but-I-still-know-more-than-the-experts.
# posted by : October 13, 2011
: October 13, 2011
Anon - you are so busy being amused that you cannot give either facts or sound reasoning to support your tribal and religious beliefs.
Regional temperatures are bound to affect the (invented) global temperature. And it is warmists who started the game of labeling extreme weather as an indicator of CAGW.
As well as ignoring the sun's variability by insisting that there is only global warming and that it is entirely man made by only man made carbon dioxide. Then insisting this was a scientific consensus and unquestionable. Some science, I don't think.
Regional temperatures are bound to affect the (invented) global temperature. And it is warmists who started the game of labeling extreme weather as an indicator of CAGW.
As well as ignoring the sun's variability by insisting that there is only global warming and that it is entirely man made by only man made carbon dioxide. Then insisting this was a scientific consensus and unquestionable. Some science, I don't think.
# posted by : October 14, 2011
: October 14, 2011
Hey, Budgie:
I *dare* you to ask NC about David King.
Repeat: I *dare* you.
You will of course not do so--as the few other quasi-readers of this joke blog haven't.
You also know nothing about solar variability; you are just repeating a sound byte you read on some anti-science scourge site like this one.
You, like Mr. Craig, have never conducted independent research in your life. Nor have you ever read a real research article.
I'll repeat it once more: I *dare* you to ask Neil Craig about David King and Antarctica.
He knows he made a fool of himself on this issue and he will dodge it like a coward. Watch.
Scienceblogs Skip
I *dare* you to ask NC about David King.
Repeat: I *dare* you.
You will of course not do so--as the few other quasi-readers of this joke blog haven't.
You also know nothing about solar variability; you are just repeating a sound byte you read on some anti-science scourge site like this one.
You, like Mr. Craig, have never conducted independent research in your life. Nor have you ever read a real research article.
I'll repeat it once more: I *dare* you to ask Neil Craig about David King and Antarctica.
He knows he made a fool of himself on this issue and he will dodge it like a coward. Watch.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 15, 2011
: October 15, 2011
Skip - the fact that you can make definitive statements based on no evidence is part of the reason you have fallen for the anti-science hoax of CAGW. The other part is your inadequate personality that needs the crutch of a pseudo-religion.
# posted by : October 16, 2011
: October 16, 2011
"I never claimed to be a climate scientist"
Ye4s you did SDkip and the link to your statement is given on the Greg Evans thread. More credibly you also named several other "peer reviewed scientist" on there none of whom denied they, or you were - without that I would have assumed, from your obvious ignarance and lack of understanding opf science" that you fell below the possible standards for "real climate scientists".
Your remark about King is, of course, a lie. I have several times given you links and anybody can check on Google that he did indeed say that Antractica would be the only habitable continent by 2100 (& then back off drastically).
Ye4s you did SDkip and the link to your statement is given on the Greg Evans thread. More credibly you also named several other "peer reviewed scientist" on there none of whom denied they, or you were - without that I would have assumed, from your obvious ignarance and lack of understanding opf science" that you fell below the possible standards for "real climate scientists".
Your remark about King is, of course, a lie. I have several times given you links and anybody can check on Google that he did indeed say that Antractica would be the only habitable continent by 2100 (& then back off drastically).
"Ye4s you did SDkip"
Nice spelling and editing as usual, "Beil"
Link it!
Where?
Now watch, Budgie [your "nom de plume"?]
Neil has now answer.
Neil has no link.
He's a liar.
And he knows it.
I *dare* you to link it, Neil.
I *dare* you.
Again, now watch, Budgie: Neil will provide no link. He will provide no answer.
He lied. He knows he lied. And now he has to face the ugly fact that his pathetic, dishonest life will be haunted by me--unless he comes clean.
It's not too late, Neil. You can still do the right thing and admit your lie.
Or, you can persist in it-and face dealing with me the rest of your nonsense-blogging life.
Scienceblogs Skip
Nice spelling and editing as usual, "Beil"
Link it!
Where?
Now watch, Budgie [your "nom de plume"?]
Neil has now answer.
Neil has no link.
He's a liar.
And he knows it.
I *dare* you to link it, Neil.
I *dare* you.
Again, now watch, Budgie: Neil will provide no link. He will provide no answer.
He lied. He knows he lied. And now he has to face the ugly fact that his pathetic, dishonest life will be haunted by me--unless he comes clean.
It's not too late, Neil. You can still do the right thing and admit your lie.
Or, you can persist in it-and face dealing with me the rest of your nonsense-blogging life.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 17, 2011
: October 17, 2011
"Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week." Geoffrey Lean, Independent. (http://www.rense.com/general52/ahbi.htm)
"... Sir David King, when he said that if we did not act to reduce our carbon emissions, by the end of the century Antarctica would be the world's only habitable continent." The Times.
Amazon strapline: "David King: Books. ... global warming, by 2100 the only habitable continent will be Antarctica." (Book: 'The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About Global Warming' [Paperback] Gabrielle Walker (Author) David King (Author))
Etc.
"... Sir David King, when he said that if we did not act to reduce our carbon emissions, by the end of the century Antarctica would be the world's only habitable continent." The Times.
Amazon strapline: "David King: Books. ... global warming, by 2100 the only habitable continent will be Antarctica." (Book: 'The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About Global Warming' [Paperback] Gabrielle Walker (Author) David King (Author))
Etc.
# posted by : October 17, 2011
: October 17, 2011
Like everyone else, Budgie, you used the *newspaper's* misquote of King. Just like Neil Craig did when he made a fool of himself on Scienceblogs. You never checked to see what King really said.
He *never* said it, Budgie.
Do you want to know what he *really* said?
Or are you satisfied accepting this exhausted faux blunder pseudo-quote-mined by the likes of Mr. Craig?
Scienceblogs Skip
He *never* said it, Budgie.
Do you want to know what he *really* said?
Or are you satisfied accepting this exhausted faux blunder pseudo-quote-mined by the likes of Mr. Craig?
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 17, 2011
: October 17, 2011
This, Budgie, is what David King *really* said in his testimony before parliament.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/490/4033002.htm
The excerpt of interest is:
" . . . Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; *the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place*, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century. So it seems to me that it is clear on a global and geological scale that climate change is the most serious problem we are faced with this century . . . "
Only in the minds of complete fanatics could this statement be interpreted the way you and Neil have so blindly done. But once an appealing idea gets trapped in a dogmatists head, it never leaves.
Scienceblogs Skip
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/490/4033002.htm
The excerpt of interest is:
" . . . Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; *the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place*, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century. So it seems to me that it is clear on a global and geological scale that climate change is the most serious problem we are faced with this century . . . "
Only in the minds of complete fanatics could this statement be interpreted the way you and Neil have so blindly done. But once an appealing idea gets trapped in a dogmatists head, it never leaves.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 17, 2011
: October 17, 2011
And thjis is what Sir David King said at breakfast yesterday.
"Good morning, what's for breakfast?"
Only in the minds of wholly dishonest people, like climate "scientists", as so ably represented by Skip, could it be claimed that the government's former "Chief Science Advisor" has only spoken once in his life. His promise that "antractica wil be the only habitable continent" is well attested, as Skip knows because he has repeatedly been given links.
"Good morning, what's for breakfast?"
Only in the minds of wholly dishonest people, like climate "scientists", as so ably represented by Skip, could it be claimed that the government's former "Chief Science Advisor" has only spoken once in his life. His promise that "antractica wil be the only habitable continent" is well attested, as Skip knows because he has repeatedly been given links.
Links that were shown to be *wrong.*
You know they are wrong. This was shown to you on Scienceblogs and you just restated your lie, again and again.
You relied on incorrect information as did Budgie.
You started as a bungler, relying on the viral non-quote by King. The number of times it was restated by incompetent media functionaries doesn't change the fact that *it is not true*.
Now you're just lying--as all knowledge and science haters do.
Scienceblogs Skip
You know they are wrong. This was shown to you on Scienceblogs and you just restated your lie, again and again.
You relied on incorrect information as did Budgie.
You started as a bungler, relying on the viral non-quote by King. The number of times it was restated by incompetent media functionaries doesn't change the fact that *it is not true*.
Now you're just lying--as all knowledge and science haters do.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 18, 2011
: October 18, 2011
Do you have any actual evidence that the Independent reporter (and others) reporting what he said to him was making it up and that only you, who was not on the same continent, correctly heard what he said?
You are an idiot and a climate "scientist" (but I repeat myself) arguing that black is white to a sighted audience.
You are an idiot and a climate "scientist" (but I repeat myself) arguing that black is white to a sighted audience.
"Do you have any actual evidence that the Independent reporter (and others) reporting what he said to him was making it up . . . ?"
Why yes, Mr. Craig! I do!
I have the actual *quote*, which I provided!
He *never* said it! There is no more argument. The paper got it wrong--and the mistake went viral--and the real "idiots* are the people like you who so blindly believe it nonetheless!
But this is the part of this I relish, Mr. Craig. You dug yourself a preposterous hole and now you cannot get out of it because you have no capacity for self criticism or honesty.
You will persist in this lie, with the lamest of rationale (continental proximity, for Godsakes; how can you be so deluded?) forever. This is what shows you indeed to be the real "idiot" here.
Imagine, Mr. Craig, if you had simply acknowledged the mistake months ago when you were nailed on Scienceblogs by one "Marco". You wouldn't have painted yourself into this embarrassing corner.
But too late for that now. You, like the Nazis, have repeated your lie too many times and now you're committed to it. I suspect you will never repent-although I am open to being surprised.
Scienceblogs Skip
Why yes, Mr. Craig! I do!
I have the actual *quote*, which I provided!
He *never* said it! There is no more argument. The paper got it wrong--and the mistake went viral--and the real "idiots* are the people like you who so blindly believe it nonetheless!
But this is the part of this I relish, Mr. Craig. You dug yourself a preposterous hole and now you cannot get out of it because you have no capacity for self criticism or honesty.
You will persist in this lie, with the lamest of rationale (continental proximity, for Godsakes; how can you be so deluded?) forever. This is what shows you indeed to be the real "idiot" here.
Imagine, Mr. Craig, if you had simply acknowledged the mistake months ago when you were nailed on Scienceblogs by one "Marco". You wouldn't have painted yourself into this embarrassing corner.
But too late for that now. You, like the Nazis, have repeated your lie too many times and now you're committed to it. I suspect you will never repent-although I am open to being surprised.
Scienceblogs Skip
# posted by : October 18, 2011
: October 18, 2011
So, my "peer reviewed climate scientist" chum, at last you, acknowledge that the links we, repeatedly, have your word don't exist, do.
You are now merely claiming that the Independent are lying about what king told them. Why exactly would they make it up? Is it part of some scepitcal plot (if that is not a contradiction in terms)?
You are now merely claiming that the Independent are lying about what king told them. Why exactly would they make it up? Is it part of some scepitcal plot (if that is not a contradiction in terms)?
You really are an idiot Skip. In your quote King clearly states that extrapolating current CO2 levels to 2100 will lead to Antarctica being "the most habitable place for mammals". And that the rest of the world would be "rather [un]inhabitable".
It is about time climate alarmists were held to account for their irresponsible scaremongering, instead of pretending years later they didn't mean what everyone including themselves were happy to accept previously.
It is about time climate alarmists were held to account for their irresponsible scaremongering, instead of pretending years later they didn't mean what everyone including themselves were happy to accept previously.
# posted by : October 19, 2011
: October 19, 2011
Or, more likely, the writer at the Independent was simply incompetent, Neil.
Right, Budgie. He *did* say that. He did *not* say what you and Neil Claimed he did!
He didn't say it! He was merely pointing out that 1000 ppm was very dangerous in the past and thus *might* be very dangerous in the future. He never said that Antarctica would be the only habitable location by 2100. He didn't even say Antarctica was the only habitable region the *last time* CO2 was 1000 ppm.
You have egg all over your face, Budgie, and serves you right for reading and believing this imbecile and his half-wit blog.
The quote *never* existed.
Are you going to admit it now, you *idiot*--or are are you going to switch your argument like the liar Neil Craig?
Go ahead--you idiot--keep lying. You get to live with yourself--and your lying mate, Neil Craig.
You get to live with the fact that you were proven wrong and the only response you had was to switch the argument. Neil gets to the live with the fact that he is multiply proven liar.
Skip
Right, Budgie. He *did* say that. He did *not* say what you and Neil Claimed he did!
He didn't say it! He was merely pointing out that 1000 ppm was very dangerous in the past and thus *might* be very dangerous in the future. He never said that Antarctica would be the only habitable location by 2100. He didn't even say Antarctica was the only habitable region the *last time* CO2 was 1000 ppm.
You have egg all over your face, Budgie, and serves you right for reading and believing this imbecile and his half-wit blog.
The quote *never* existed.
Are you going to admit it now, you *idiot*--or are are you going to switch your argument like the liar Neil Craig?
Go ahead--you idiot--keep lying. You get to live with yourself--and your lying mate, Neil Craig.
You get to live with the fact that you were proven wrong and the only response you had was to switch the argument. Neil gets to the live with the fact that he is multiply proven liar.
Skip
# posted by : October 19, 2011
: October 19, 2011
Skip still waiting for your evidence that your competence for overhearing what he said to the Indie's journalist, a continent away, is greater than that of the journalist present?
If you have no such evidence you are about as likely to be telling the truth as Hansen, Mann or any other "peer reviewed" climate scientist.
If you have no such evidence you are about as likely to be telling the truth as Hansen, Mann or any other "peer reviewed" climate scientist.
Skip, in your quote King clearly states that extrapolating current CO2 levels to 2100 will lead to Antarctica being "the most habitable place for mammals". And that the rest of the world would be "rather [un]inhabitable".
If you or King or other alarmists didn't accept what all the papers said then where are all the refutations from warmists stating that the papers got it oh so wrong?
Answer - warmists are quite happy to scaremonger then years later try to claim that they never said it. What warmists must do to be believed is to refute the scaremongering at the time.
If you or King or other alarmists didn't accept what all the papers said then where are all the refutations from warmists stating that the papers got it oh so wrong?
Answer - warmists are quite happy to scaremonger then years later try to claim that they never said it. What warmists must do to be believed is to refute the scaremongering at the time.
# posted by : October 20, 2011
: October 20, 2011
'King clearly states that extrapolating current CO2 levels to 2100 will lead to Antarctica being "the most habitable place for mammals"'
No, Budgie. He didn't. He was talking about the *past*. He never specifically claimed that 1000 ppm would have an identical effect at 2100 as it did in the past. He was simply pointing out that that number has been inhospitable in the past--and that therefore we should treat climate change as a very serious issue.
Furthermore, Budgie here's what *Neil* claimed:
"I have several times given you links and anybody can check on Google that he did indeed say that Antractica would be the only habitable continent by 2100" --Neil
And you tried to support him with newspaper quotes claiming he said
"Antarctica is likely to be the world's *only habitable continent* . . . "
and an "Amazon strapline?". (So the fact that you plugged in your claim as a search term and a book you never read comes up proves that what you claim the author said is in the book?!? This is how your mind works, Budgie? No wonder you like Neil Craig.)
Both of you are deluded peas in a pod.
A scientist whose intellect and professional standing are outside your conception makes a comparison that is rent, either through incompetence or design, out of context, and misquoted, and you are going to defend your bungled use of sources and reliance on said misinterpretation even if it costs you your sanity and credibility.
Welcome to global warming denial, gentlemen. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
No, Budgie. He didn't. He was talking about the *past*. He never specifically claimed that 1000 ppm would have an identical effect at 2100 as it did in the past. He was simply pointing out that that number has been inhospitable in the past--and that therefore we should treat climate change as a very serious issue.
Furthermore, Budgie here's what *Neil* claimed:
"I have several times given you links and anybody can check on Google that he did indeed say that Antractica would be the only habitable continent by 2100" --Neil
And you tried to support him with newspaper quotes claiming he said
"Antarctica is likely to be the world's *only habitable continent* . . . "
and an "Amazon strapline?". (So the fact that you plugged in your claim as a search term and a book you never read comes up proves that what you claim the author said is in the book?!? This is how your mind works, Budgie? No wonder you like Neil Craig.)
Both of you are deluded peas in a pod.
A scientist whose intellect and professional standing are outside your conception makes a comparison that is rent, either through incompetence or design, out of context, and misquoted, and you are going to defend your bungled use of sources and reliance on said misinterpretation even if it costs you your sanity and credibility.
Welcome to global warming denial, gentlemen. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
# posted by : October 20, 2011
: October 20, 2011
Good point Budgie about the refusal by alarmists, including Sir David, to deny that he had said this at the time when the papers piblished it, but only years later when the evidence that it was a lie was inambiguous. Had it been untrue they would certainly have disputed having told this total lie at the time.
Since Skip here has claimed to have had better knowledge of what King said to the Independent reporter than that reporter had, apparently using the transcontinental superpower of super-hearing all climate "scientists", if they are remotely honest, posess, he will be able to provide links to where, at the time, he personally said King never said this. At least unless he is lying he will.
Since Skip here has claimed to have had better knowledge of what King said to the Independent reporter than that reporter had, apparently using the transcontinental superpower of super-hearing all climate "scientists", if they are remotely honest, posess, he will be able to provide links to where, at the time, he personally said King never said this. At least unless he is lying he will.
Nice try, Neil.
Hey Budgie:
Unable to face the truth, Neil just censored my refutation of him.
Don't worry, Neil. I have a draft of it.
The bottom line is there *was no* interview of David King to be interpreted. The incompetent newspaper reporter had based his whole misstatement on the very same testimony before parliament that I had linked.
Neil, unable to face the truth, just censored me.
Who's the real Nazi now?
Skip
Hey Budgie:
Unable to face the truth, Neil just censored my refutation of him.
Don't worry, Neil. I have a draft of it.
The bottom line is there *was no* interview of David King to be interpreted. The incompetent newspaper reporter had based his whole misstatement on the very same testimony before parliament that I had linked.
Neil, unable to face the truth, just censored me.
Who's the real Nazi now?
Skip
# posted by : October 21, 2011
: October 21, 2011
I didn't censor you and clearly am not doing so now.
I do reserve the right to delete comments which are fact free an rude & have done so with you a couple of times. That is not Nazism. It isn't even Fascism (a different thing).
I note however, that you now claim any form of deletion is "Nazism" let alone the purely political stuff all but 1 "scienceblogs" sites does.
I would be very interested in seeing wg=here as a typical "peer reviewed" climate scientist you have gone on "scienceblogs" and denounced almost every thread as being run by "Nazis". After all you, and presumably every other honestr "climate scientist" must have done so, assuming any of you are not wholly corrupt, lying, thieving, parasitic fascists (see there is a difference).
I do reserve the right to delete comments which are fact free an rude & have done so with you a couple of times. That is not Nazism. It isn't even Fascism (a different thing).
I note however, that you now claim any form of deletion is "Nazism" let alone the purely political stuff all but 1 "scienceblogs" sites does.
I would be very interested in seeing wg=here as a typical "peer reviewed" climate scientist you have gone on "scienceblogs" and denounced almost every thread as being run by "Nazis". After all you, and presumably every other honestr "climate scientist" must have done so, assuming any of you are not wholly corrupt, lying, thieving, parasitic fascists (see there is a difference).
So Skip while if you or your "climate scientist" friends on "sciencbliogs" are something other than hypocrital, lying fascists you have gone on there and denounce3d them for being "Naqzis" it is clear thatyou haven't.
Hardly unexpected you disgusting lying animal.
Now re your specific claims of this site, which with all the integrity the IPCC ever bring to their endeavours, you have claimed doesn't exist - in fact the article not only doesn't mention King's testimony to Parliament at all and says that he heard this from King "last week". You do not dispute that King did not dispute having said this at the time.
So your entire thesis depends on the claim that King was incapable of speaking more than once in one week.You should either provide evidence for this claim (something stronger than your assertion of the power of intercontinental sup- hearing) or apologise for being both a typical climate "scientist" a corrupt, lying Nazi whose word on any subject can never be treated as remotely honest.
Or should we just take the latter as read?
Hardly unexpected you disgusting lying animal.
Now re your specific claims of this site, which with all the integrity the IPCC ever bring to their endeavours, you have claimed doesn't exist - in fact the article not only doesn't mention King's testimony to Parliament at all and says that he heard this from King "last week". You do not dispute that King did not dispute having said this at the time.
So your entire thesis depends on the claim that King was incapable of speaking more than once in one week.You should either provide evidence for this claim (something stronger than your assertion of the power of intercontinental sup- hearing) or apologise for being both a typical climate "scientist" a corrupt, lying Nazi whose word on any subject can never be treated as remotely honest.
Or should we just take the latter as read?
So your entire thesis depends on the claim that King was incapable of speaking more than once in one week.
Wrong, you lying censoring Nazi idiot.
My entire claim was based on the obvious truth that the article was based on the testimony before Parliament. There was no interview, as you have so stupidly tried to claim, idiot.
That's why you censored me: because I proved you wrong.
Just remember, Neil: After Hitler rose to power the first people he betrayed were his Brown Shirt street men. There is no future for you in any Nazi Scotland.
Skip
Wrong, you lying censoring Nazi idiot.
My entire claim was based on the obvious truth that the article was based on the testimony before Parliament. There was no interview, as you have so stupidly tried to claim, idiot.
That's why you censored me: because I proved you wrong.
Just remember, Neil: After Hitler rose to power the first people he betrayed were his Brown Shirt street men. There is no future for you in any Nazi Scotland.
Skip
# posted by : October 22, 2011
: October 22, 2011
You arer merely repeating things which have repeatedly been proven deliberate lies. You have not attempted to produce
You have not attempted to produce any evidence that the reporter did not speak to him before reporting whatb he said - which would be, even for journalists supporting you ecofascists, unusula.
Nor replied to
"You should either provide evidence for this claim (something stronger than your assertion of the power of intercontinental sup- hearing) or apologise for being both a typical climate "scientist" a corrupt, lying Nazi whose word on any subject can never be treated as remotely honest.
Or should we just take the latter as read?"
So that simply must be taken as implicit admission that you and any climate "scientist" of similar integrity, are simply an obnscene lying fascist incapable of any form of honesty. I await your apology you obscenity.
You have not attempted to produce any evidence that the reporter did not speak to him before reporting whatb he said - which would be, even for journalists supporting you ecofascists, unusula.
Nor replied to
"You should either provide evidence for this claim (something stronger than your assertion of the power of intercontinental sup- hearing) or apologise for being both a typical climate "scientist" a corrupt, lying Nazi whose word on any subject can never be treated as remotely honest.
Or should we just take the latter as read?"
So that simply must be taken as implicit admission that you and any climate "scientist" of similar integrity, are simply an obnscene lying fascist incapable of any form of honesty. I await your apology you obscenity.
Brilliant, you brown shirt. So you get to *presume* there was an interview in which King said what you claim, even though the reporter never *claimed* there was an interview--and he cited the testimony before parliament specifically.
I am not awaiting your apology though. You lack the wit *and* the moral character to admit that you are just plain stupidly wrong.
I proved you wrong and you censored me. You're a Nazi.
Skip
I am not awaiting your apology though. You lack the wit *and* the moral character to admit that you are just plain stupidly wrong.
I proved you wrong and you censored me. You're a Nazi.
Skip
# posted by : October 24, 2011
: October 24, 2011
Oh, by the way, Mr. Craig:
Sir David King *has* in fact specifically repudiated the allegation that he said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100.
Let me repeat that so it has a chance to penetrate that dense skull of yours:
Sir David King *has* in fact specifically repudiated the allegation that he said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100.
This is from the Office of Communications summary of the complaint lodged by King (and others) against the producers of *The Great Global Warming Swindle*, which ended by ridiculing King for saying what you claim he said:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb114/issue114.pdf
Sir David maintained the programme [*The Great Global Warming Swindle*] had clearly presented a distortion of his views.
Sir David said that he did not say or imply that the Antarctic was ever the ONLY habitable place for mammals, still less was he making a prediction that it would be the only or even the most, habitable place for mammals if CO2 concentrations reached similar concentrations in the future. Sir David said he had made an analogy to the past that was intended to draw attention to the potential seriousness of the problem.
He probably was not even aware that the bungler at the Independent had misquoted him until the distortion was popularized by the *The Great Global Warming Swindle*. By then illiterates such as yourself had taken the misquote and run with it.
But now you see the truth in plain language, Neil.
You relied on an incompetent secondary source because it fit your agenda.
You have completely ignored all subsequent factual revelation on this matter because you are insufferably obstinate and dogmatic.
You have kept repeating a dimwit lie again and again and again.
The only question left is, do you have the moral strength and character to admit you were wrong?
skip
Sir David King *has* in fact specifically repudiated the allegation that he said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100.
Let me repeat that so it has a chance to penetrate that dense skull of yours:
Sir David King *has* in fact specifically repudiated the allegation that he said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100.
This is from the Office of Communications summary of the complaint lodged by King (and others) against the producers of *The Great Global Warming Swindle*, which ended by ridiculing King for saying what you claim he said:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb114/issue114.pdf
Sir David maintained the programme [*The Great Global Warming Swindle*] had clearly presented a distortion of his views.
Sir David said that he did not say or imply that the Antarctic was ever the ONLY habitable place for mammals, still less was he making a prediction that it would be the only or even the most, habitable place for mammals if CO2 concentrations reached similar concentrations in the future. Sir David said he had made an analogy to the past that was intended to draw attention to the potential seriousness of the problem.
He probably was not even aware that the bungler at the Independent had misquoted him until the distortion was popularized by the *The Great Global Warming Swindle*. By then illiterates such as yourself had taken the misquote and run with it.
But now you see the truth in plain language, Neil.
You relied on an incompetent secondary source because it fit your agenda.
You have completely ignored all subsequent factual revelation on this matter because you are insufferably obstinate and dogmatic.
You have kept repeating a dimwit lie again and again and again.
The only question left is, do you have the moral strength and character to admit you were wrong?
skip
# posted by : October 24, 2011
: October 24, 2011
What British readers will be aware (& those american ones like yourself who have read up on it) is that the GGWS film came out long after King's statement. King most specifically did not deny having said it at the time.
When Budgie asked you to produce some evidence he said "Answer - warmists are quite happy to scaremonger then years later try to claim that they never said it. What warmists must do to be believed is to refute the scaremongering at the time."
Many many posts later you have made no attempt to produce such evidence. If your claims were in any slightest degree honest (omiting the bit about super-hearing) he would have repudiated it at the thime and you would have no problem producing it. You clearly know that you are l that everything you are claiming merely represents the pinnacle of honesty to which any econazi aspires. That is to say you are a lying Nazi parasitie Skip.
When Budgie asked you to produce some evidence he said "Answer - warmists are quite happy to scaremonger then years later try to claim that they never said it. What warmists must do to be believed is to refute the scaremongering at the time."
Many many posts later you have made no attempt to produce such evidence. If your claims were in any slightest degree honest (omiting the bit about super-hearing) he would have repudiated it at the thime and you would have no problem producing it. You clearly know that you are l that everything you are claiming merely represents the pinnacle of honesty to which any econazi aspires. That is to say you are a lying Nazi parasitie Skip.
Skip made a cdomment which made no attempt to answer or to make any factual point but was purely ad homs.
As i have sau=id I feel under nio obligation to accept such and feel I habe given him and his fellow climate "scientists" more than enough rope.
If he has an answer to the questions asked him, or an apology, or a serious point to make I will still allow it.
As i have sau=id I feel under nio obligation to accept such and feel I habe given him and his fellow climate "scientists" more than enough rope.
If he has an answer to the questions asked him, or an apology, or a serious point to make I will still allow it.
And the censorship continues . . . .
Now we see true Nazism in practice: Unable to face the truth and admit his *lie*, Neil Craig just uses his petty power of deletion to hide from reality.
The man who kept claiming he was being censored at Scienceblogs--even though he never was--has turned to the same recourse as witch burners and bigots from times past: Don't like something? Try to destroy it with force and ignorance.
Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you, Mr. Craig.
Post a Comment
Now we see true Nazism in practice: Unable to face the truth and admit his *lie*, Neil Craig just uses his petty power of deletion to hide from reality.
The man who kept claiming he was being censored at Scienceblogs--even though he never was--has turned to the same recourse as witch burners and bigots from times past: Don't like something? Try to destroy it with force and ignorance.
Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you, Mr. Craig.
# posted by : October 27, 2011
: October 27, 2011 << Home
