Click to get your own widget

Friday, March 02, 2012

Scotsman Letter - Nurse's Slithering

   This letter went out to nearly 50 papers in Scotland, England and internationally and has been published (edits in bold and additions in italics) by the Scotsman. Google News doesn't always show all publications so I would be grateful if anybody who sees it elsewhere lets me know.
The President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, who has long been heavily pushing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) said, in the Dimbleby lecture on Tuesday, that this was an "extremist" position and redefined himself as a believer in lesser warming.
Since this has always been the position of sceptics & "deniers" - that [They believe]such warming as we have had is less than seen many times in history; that [They also say] a small amount of warming makes life easier; and that an increase in CO2 improves crop growth - [So] may we take this as official confirmation that the catastrophic warming scam has run its course?
If so can we have back some of the hundreds of billions governments have taken from us to subsidise windmills, quangos, adverts, regulations, more regulators and the whole "Green" paraphernalia we have been subjected to which has cut growth, in those countries which fell for it, to zero or less? Though world average growth remains at 5%.

  Fairly unusually for the Scotsman I don't l think the edits improve it. The middle paragraph is turned from 1 sentence to 3 which may be more grammatical but I think loses emphasis. I understand removing the calling of CAGW a "scam". I regret deleting the last sentence which puts our own recession in perspective with the notable failure of the rest of the world to achieve that distinction.
   I have emailed the Royal Society asking Sir Paul, or anybody there, to name any of the deniers who  he alleges holds the "extreme" position that there has never been any warming whatsoever. It is proper to give them time to answer before I publish it. Certainly if he is in any way honest he must know of a large number of such sceptics who hold that view rather than the "no catastrophic warming" one which he and his alleged "scientific consensus" have now reversed into supporting.
  On the Politics Show last night Michael Portillo (formerly a politician more Thatcherite than Thatcher but now, having been fired by the electors, a moderate who makes his living as a BBC approved media personality) chose Sir Paul's speech as his political "moment of the week" because of its inspiring support of science. He entirely missed his reversal on CAGW.
     The interesting tidbit was that he had been at the same school as Nurse (& incidentally Labour leftist and sender of her children to public schools - Diane Abbot) so it must have been a good one. Nonetheless he did so badly there that he almost failed to get a university place.
     Sir Paul has a Nobel (a real one not the Gore/Arafat "Peace" one or the "Economics" one which Nobel never heard of and is just the Swedish State Bank using his name). This, combined with the obvious fact that Sir Paul is a political "scientist" either with no respect for scientific principles or simply to stupid to understand how warmism fails them, raises some questions about how he got it, which may be worth an essay sometime.

   And my girlfriend, who may be considered less committed to this than I, sent me this link of Richard Black and the BBC desperately trying to link an increase in a disease of sheep to CAGW. The disease is spread by midges and as everybody knows the main cause of midges is warmth, which is why they are so common in the Mediterranean while Scotland is known for its paucity of the wee creatures. Therefore GLOBAL WARMING WILL DOOM US ALL TO CATCH SHEEP DISEASES FROM MIDGES.. As she says
"Can I just say, I live in a really cold town, and we have loads of midges. I saw some in our garden a couple of weeks ago (and it certainly wasn't bikini weather). In fact, isn't Scotland famous for (a) Having lots of midges, as well as (b) Being really very cold?
I despair, I really do. I mean, it's one thing to not understand science, but to be completely devoid of higher brain function, that's just tragic."

Labels: , ,

and Neil Craig's mindless reliance on a proven liar exposes the grotesque twisting of the MET office report--they responded in detail to the stupidity Neil Craig links about "no warming in 15 years":

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT.

This is what happens when you don't check (or even read) your own sources.

Now go back to censoring, Mr. Craig. It's the only way you can continue to hide in your lies.
By "twisting" Skip is probably refering (though it is difficult to tell since he doesn't bother with providing facts) to Jones' previous admission that there had been no statisitically significant warming for 15 years to which he later insisted no longer applied, not because there had actually been extra warming but because he felt able to change his measures of statistical relevance.

I am not. I am talking about what is on the Mail link given elsewhere about a more recent acknowledgement by the Met & CRU that not only has there (still) been no such warming but that cooling is likely.

Skip as an eminent represntative of "climate scientists" you should check your own sources even if you don't provide them. It would make you and your cohorts look slightly less idiotic.

PS As is obvious here I have not and do not refuse comments if they appear to be making a point, however ridiculous it is. I only remove you when you limit yourself entirely to insults &/or obscenities. Being published in the very finest journals to promote the econazi scam I can understand why the concept of facts not ad homs is foreign to you.

My God, Neil Craig.

You cannot even keep your own dumb links and sources straight. The article about the MET office report from January 2012--which you *linked* is a *completely different source* from Phil Jones's comments about "no statistically significant warming" since 1995 made in *2010*.

The fact that you cannot even comprehend a response to your *own* link shows the obvious effects of dishonesty and illiteracy--and possibly the sheep midges as well.

That you still think I ever claimed to be a "climate scientist" is a further illustration of the limits of your intellect and character.
Skip, though I am flattered you consider me to be your God I still have to point out when you are writing nonsense.

That it is a different source from the one you mention is does not prove me wrong since, if you actually read what you are criticising, you will see I said it was a different source.

Your claim to expertise in "climate science" as a such a scientist "published in the finest journals" on "scienceblogs" has previously been linked to.

The more interesting point is that , thou7gh you named several other commenters there as being the same nobody there called you the liar you so obviously are. Interesting as a demonstration of the standard of total dishonesty to be expected from a very wide range of ecofascists.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.