A Place to Stand

 Recently one of Tim Worstall's threads got attacked by a William Connolley who has one of the "scienceblogs" sites. Apparently in the copious free time his employer gives him has allowed him to be an almost full time rewriter of Wikipedia articles on CAGW.To such an extent that he was severely upbraided by Wikipedia.

  He also runs the appropriately named Stoat site on Scienceblogs. I have reported prviously howthast site supports warming scares not by honestly disputing but by lies (eg Greg Laden's claim to be the world's only independent of government pay climate scientist when in fact he is paid by the government and is not a scientist, climate or otherwise, but an assistant anthropology teacher) insults, obscenity and censorship. How scientific.

  When he made the Worstlall comments I commented on his site that he should be grateful that Mr Worstall does not censor even the personally offensive remarks he made whereas the group of sites he was in depend on lies, insults, obscenity and such censorship

  Here are a few comments he inevitably censored. One surprising thing is that this alleged Wikipedia expert , who deletes the facts put forward by the rest of us is so ignorant of his case that he thought Prof James Lovelock was still on the alarmists side. Less surprising was that when this was gently pointed out to him he refused to acknowledge this was wrong, even after admitting it was - one feature of eco-fascists and fanatics in general is that they will never modify yheir position in line with new facts, no matter how obviously they are maintaining an untenable position.

I would like, once again, to see it there is anybody, anywhere in the world, who suppoerts the warming scare who has sufficient personal integrity and respect for the principles of science to be willing to say that censoeship, insults and obscenity are the proper way to achieve scientific truth. Consequently that "Scienceblogs" is in no way scientific.

I do not think that any honest or decent person could disagree with that & await seeing whether there is a single honest or decent person, worldwide, in the movement.
----------------------------
Twice W has claimed to have named a scientist who promotes catastrophic warming without actually naming them. 'Nuff said)
To claim that nobody else ever refers to doubterrs of catastrophi8c global warming as anythingt other than "denialists" (not even "deniers" as if lengthening the word gives it gravitas) is obviously unture. "Denier" (or extensions thereof) is gratuitous rudeness deigned to draw a flase comparison with Holocaust deniers. Use of the term merely shows that the user is engaged in a heresy hunt rather than science.As a matter of cold fact the only people who actully "deny" climater change has always taken place are the "we must get rid of the Medieval Warming Period" alarmistt pseudo-scientists.
I await William actually producing some of the "answers" he claims to have rather than relying on censorship again. -------------------------------   In response to an article giving "7 difficult questions GM supports must answer" - they were all easy.

1 - Yes, food has been eaten.


2 - Yes, that is what the free market means

3 - Yes, 1 = 2 = 3

4 - Define "safe", Certainly they are far safer than "organic" food

5 - "perceived" & "conceivable" are meaningless unless you can define them in relation to facts. Factually the answer is yes

6 - yes and yes, at least to a far greater degree than one can trust pseudo-scientists all getting their funding from one politically controlled source. Reference Lysenko and the catastrophic warming fraud
7 - Mainly money (ref answer 2) thopugh many involved will also be motivated by a desire to help humanity
I do not expect reasoned rebuttal. I do not expect even an attempt at it. Normal practice on "scienceblogs" is insults & when that doesn't work, obscenity & when that doesn't, censorship.
-----------------------------
Mr Connolley I am amazed at the extent of your ignorance of the climate debate. The moreso because you are clearly employed to rewrite articles on Wikipedia on the subject and your endless pontificating on sceptic sites (which, unlike yours, do not depend on censorship).
One would have thought Wiki would have wished to limit "editings" from those who are so basically uninformed.
Your claim Professor James Lovelock as the main/sole independent scientist who supports the catastrophic warming scam, is simply ignorant. It is true that the professor did initially accept this but he is a man of scientific principles and when the climategate emails surfaced and it became obvious the warming pseudo-scientists were frauds he changed his mind (as real scientists do in the face of evidence).
His remark
"“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane"
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have-kept-us-sane.html
would not normally be considered an endorsement of warming alarmism (though I grant one could say that accusing alarmists of being insane is a defence to a charge that they are all complete frauds which fits the facts at least as well)

I ask you to retract the claim that Lovelock is a supporter of CAGW alarmism. I also ask you to either name some other independent scientist who is or acknowledge that, out of the many millions of scientists worldwide, you cannot name one who is independent and part of your alleged "consensus". I note we still have no example from anybody else here.
--------------------------------
He censored that post "just to teach youn politeness" and then proved what an obvious hypocrit he is by calling me a "denialist nutter"

"Just for you, to teach you politeness"
I note your definition of "politeness" includes you calling me a "denialiist nutter" though you have no only not said why my opinions are wrong but even what they are. Teaching noted - It must therefore be proper for me to call you an "eco-Nazi fraudster" but, since I do not wish to go beyond what is clearly proven I will stick to eco-Fascist fraudster if that is OK?
Now as to the issues.
You have declined to retract your claim that Lovelock is the "single “scientist” supporting alarmism who isn’t being paid for it" though it clear from context that you know your ignorance of his views has led you to make the false claim.
OK we must accept that as representing the standard of honesty to which you aspire, rather than merely ignorance.
Do you (or anybody else) wish to put forward a second candidate?
Instead we have nonsense about not undertstanding what "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism" is. It is raising alarm about anthropogenic global warming alleged to be catastrophic. Not that difficult, eh?
Obviously a minimum for a catastrophe would be something far worse than the costs incurred in "fighting climate change" (Kyoto alone being estimated at $800 mill a day).
While asking for definitions you might wish to explain what "alarmed as the IPCC means"? Do you stand by the whole range of IPCC predictions, or simply the most recent ones? Do you stand by their original endorsement of Mann's "hockey stick"? If not is it the recent assertions in the final document or what the scientists actually said before it was edited?
Perhaps you could also define "the strawman fantasies of CAGW that the denialists make up?" would that include the 20 foot sea level rise of well known denialist Al "mostly got the science right" Gore or the 0.5C decadal temperature rise from 1979 of "denialist" James Hansen?

Obviously he censored rather than answering the questions, nor any attempt to name any other single independent scientist anywhere in the world who supports the warming fraud..
---------------------------------------
W I note your censorship of my response. Perhaps you would be good enough to acknowledge that what I said fitted closely to the standards of politeness you aspire to here.
I note you have reinforced your claim that Lovelock is indeed a scientist who supports catastrophism though that is obviously the total and exact opposite of the truth. You are right that i do not accept somebody who says the alarmist community is insane is their supporter.
I note also that you & indeed others here, are still unable to name a single " other" scientist who in independent and supports alarmism.. So that makes it a scientific consensus.
The Himalyas will melt by 2035 claim was certainly a lie since Dr Pachauri, climate scientist er well actually railroad engineer, had certainly been informed by the sceptic community that it was untrue & continued to claim it for over a year after knowing this. I would be astonished if somebody wiki chooses to rewrite factual articles on the subject was unaware of this but then to be fair it would not say much for them if they thought you did know and were lying.
I note you say of the IPCC predictions "all of them quite consistent." which means that you are standing by them all. Or perhaps, having acknowledged the Himalyas prediction in no way truthful you are saying that everything they say is similarly consistently untruthful (& you still support them all)?
Having to censor all the other points, including the one Guthrie refers to shows you know I am unanswerably correct on them all. It also shows your contempt for scientific principles.- --------------------------- Guthrie said "What also matters regarding happiness is your wealth relative to other people. If you see that some people are making loads more money whilst you and your friends and family aren’t really making anything more, you get a bit unhappier. "
This is indeed a major driver of the "environmental" movement & also socialism. Schadenfreude - that the rest of society should, under no circumstances be better off than the speaker, which can, of course, only be enforced by the most rigorous state control.
This is why Guthrie has elsewhere called for the government to enforce zero growth at least until China has the same per capita GDP as here.
Proof that the pseudo-environmental movement care nothing for the environment, it is simply that they feel this is a better flag to wave than openly calling for permanent human stagnation.