A Place to Stand

   Some time ago I did an article on a catastrophic warming lecture, run by the "Glasgow Skeptics" (an organisation which in the Orwellian manner, is absolutely opposed to scepticism). The lecturer Eugene Scott was totally unable to produce any actual evidence for her claims and I was later told that it was wrong to blame her for her for this because "she isn't really an expert" which seems a curious basis for asking her to pontificate on the subject.

    The real justification for her doing so is that she is the boss of the American NCSE*, - a busybody organisation which originally justified its existence by fighting creationism but which has since clearly found there is a niche for opposing scepticism about catastrophic warming and decided to take advantage of it, undismayed by their ignorance of the subject.

    Some time ago I sent this letter to Ms Scott and the NCSE. They have been unable to despite in any way whatsoever any of the points - specifically that there is no evidence for their claims and that therefore nobody with the remotest respect for science, indeed nobody but an out and Fascist, could support their policy of suppressing free investigation. of the evidence requested and the obscene Nazi whore has not apologised, though she has certainly been given more than enough time.

Dear Ms Eugenie Scott,

I saw your lecture last Thursday in which, among other things, you boasted of the National Center for Science Education's role in prevention Al Gore's film being matched by children being allowed to experience a debate on the subject of alleged catastrophic global warming. By definition a debate, which is itself a balanced process, cannot on its own balance a one sided, indeed repeatedly untruthful lecture. However it would have ameliorated the situation since the children would not have been limited purely to Gore's proven lies.

I assume, since you are lecturing others on the warming scare you are an expert on the subject as well as on the principles of science. As such you must be aware that Mr Gore's film has been proven stuffed with indisputable lies. Clearly you will know that the promotion, indeed exclusive promotion, of indisputable lies is not consistent with any respect whatsoever for the principles of science. Nor does it fit any definition of "education" though it does count as propaganda. Your claim that the public should not be allowed to hear ideas not promoted by those in power, but only state lies, is a major part of the definition of Fascism.

I also publicly asked questions following your lecture.
Any theory, to be scientific, requires to be accepted as falsifiable by some evidence (this is accepted by all who understand science as you claim to), thus catastrophic warming must be falsifiable. So what would you accept as falsifying it. You could produce no such conditions (indeed the fact that Hansen's 1988 1 C rise prediction by now has not come true the theory would already have proven it false it were part of science). Thus attempting to enforce warming alarmism on children is inconsistent with any claim by the NCSE to be scientific.
You were also unable to name a single solitary scientist, anywhere in the world, who supports the catastrophic warming scare and is part of the majority of scientists who are not paid by the state. While, as an open fascist you are enthusiastic about promoting state propaganda, no matter how dishonest, it cannot be honestly denied that a "scientific consensus" cannot exist if none of these scientists are part of it. As such your continued repeating that there is a "consensus" on the subject, while knowing there none of these scientists in it proves you to be wholly, completely and totally dishonest...
I would also be interested to know if you can name any single creationist organisation or individual who has less than 1,000 times as much honesty, human decency and respect for scientific principle than your own Fascist organisation. If you cannot you clearly owe all creationists a public apology for implying some moral superiority over them by lying child abusing Fascists such as yourself
I await your confirmation that you intend to act. I believe I am also entitled to an apology for being lied to by you.
Will all due respect

Neil Craig

* NCSE according to the organisers stands for National Center for Science Education but since they are absolutely opposed to the principles of science and far from supporting education, are resolutely opposed to it this cannot be true. A more factual use of their acronym is Nazi Child-Abusers for Suppression of Education.and I do not think any employee, donor or other person associated with it could dispute the proper title
    
    Should any representative of the organisation wish to say anything with any factual basis (no obscenities or fact free ad homs) I am certainly prepared to publish it.

  Yesterday - and so to the Glasgow Skeptics lecture by Eugenie Scott boss of  the American self styled "National Center for Science Education" to lecture us on how much creationism and "global warming denial" are equally anti-scientific.

   The evidence that being sceptical about warming is thus anti-scientific is that "97% of  climate scientists believe it" which is both a lie, it was "97%" of a carefully selected group of 75 and irrelevant. No other real evidence was produced.

    Surprisingly she did mention the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition (repeatedly saying 30,000) but said it didn't count because 30,000 is a small % of all scientists (whereas 75 isn't?)

   The reason given for creationism not being science is that there is no evidence against evolution which is a perfectly correct assessment but one whose implications for CAGW went unmentioned.

    The NCSE appear primarily to exist to lobby schools to "educate" children only in what they believe. This was justified by saying that some industry lobbyists also produce material for use in schools. She gave,an example of such dubious material a leaflet containing the statement in opposition to the CAGW claim that CO2 increase plant and crop growth. If the NCSE is an honest body rather than an organisation of Fascist child abusers then, by definition, that claim must either be proven wrong or at least seriously unproven. In fact there is no real scientific dispute that increased CO2 improves such growth. The experiments have been done, repeatedly, and are conclusive. Ergo Ms Scott and the NCSE are lying, anti-science, child abusing fascists.

    Another prominent reason to deny warming "deniers" a platform  was that so many of them are of the "economic right" who believe in dreadful things like "individual liberty".  Really.

   An example of their successful campaigning was given. A parent had complained  about his child being shown the Al Gore film without any contrary view, The school had agreed, for balance, to allow a debate on the subject as well. Since Gore's film has been repeatedly proven, in court and elsewhere, to be a pack of lies rather than an "education", while a debate is, by its nature, balanced this is not really balance (that would be giving somebody an hour and a half to tell lies about Gore and the alarmists which might be difficult). Nonetheless NCSE swung unto action and got even that much honest discussion banned. Clearly the term lying, anti-science, child abusing fascists is not overstating.
------------------------

And so to questions:

Patrick Harvie, leader of the Green Party

had his own agenda. Boasting, correctly, that unlike the USA, there is unanimity  among our Holyrood parties about CAGW and the need to destroy most of our economy to give an example to rest of the world. Then he got on his new hobbyhorse - the end of any sort of lily livered "compromise" with cigarette smokers. Something with which Ms Scott enthusiastically agreed.I don't remember the Greens mentioning this a few months ago among their election promises but that's how it goes.

Then there was a question from a specially invited creationist. Perhaps they had been unable to find a CAGW sceptic to invite - perhaps not.

Then I got my question - roughly

I suggest that the proper comparison should not be between creationists and warming sceptics but between creationists and warming alarmists. As a teacher of scientific principles  you will know that a theory can only be scientific if it is falsifiable, ie that supporters accept some condition under which it can be disproven. Beyond that the principle of Occam's Razor is that one go for the theory with least unknown assumptions. Could you explain what would be required to prove CAGW false and why the inherently simpler theory, that we are not currently experiencing catastrophic warming is not valid. I made mention of the fact that if Hansen's original predictions were correct we must now be 1 C warmer than then and we aren't which appears to be some falsification. Surely since we are expected to spend many £ trillions on ameliorating CAGW we should first have it unambiguously proven

   Moreover you have claimed a "consensus" though there are many eminent scientists who disagree. For example Professor Ivar Gaiever has yesterday resigned from his professional body the American Physical Society citing their support of CAGW which he described as a "new religion". In contrast I ask you to name one single solitary scientist, anywhere in the world who supports CAGW and isn't' employed by the state. I recently asked this question of Patrick Harvie, on radio, and 4 other alarmists with him and he couldn't answer it, or be fair be didn't answer it for whatever reason.

 
  Well guess what she couldn't or at least made no attempt whatsoever to answer any of that. She merely repeated ad nauseum that CAGW was correct, that 97% supported it and that there was a consensus. She repeatedly simply refused to attempt to produce any evidence, any falsifiabiolity conditions or name any independent scientist pushing it.
 
   The next questioner did acknowledge that I might have a point in that some alarmists have overstated their case but then spoilt it by comparing sceptics to Nazis. And so it went.
----------------------
  Shortly afterwards I was approached by Harvie's halitosical companion who informed me that it was impossible to deny CAGW. Since I had just been doing so I replied that I thought it was perfectly possible to deny that average global temperature had gone up 1 C since 1988 and he said "No it isn't". I will be emailing Harvie to see if he wants to dissociate himself from that claim, since he must know it to be a lie, otherwise it must be taken as representing the standard of honesty to which the Scottish greens deliberately aspire.
 
     I met Mike from the Scottish Sceptic blog who is working on creating  an organistation of real sceptics. Contact him here if interested.
 
     At the bar we got into conversation with a couple of the organiers of Glasgow Skeptic and they were actually pretty nice guys, surprised and interested in the facts. I did express regret that she had not answered any questions but was told that that was unreasonable because "she isn't a climate expert". Personally I think if you are going to lecture on why nobody should be allowed to express a contrary view you really should be.
 
In conversation I suggested a public debate between 4 or 6 speakers to air the subject properly and put on YouTube. They were not averse, though they wanted them to be "climatologists". If that is defined the same on both sides I have little doubt we could find our side and suspect they would have more difficulty. However it would have to be put to "The Committee" controlled by somebody who was totally opposed to letting "minority" opinions be heard. I guess this is the difference between "skeptics"  and we sceptics.
 
      The lecture should be up on YouTube and I will link to it.
 
      I hope that if the Glasgow Skeptics decide they are not prepared to have a real debate the Scottish Sceptics will.
 
  Mike has blogged on the subject here. He feels that those using the name "skeptic" have some obligation to be sceptical.

   For some time I have had a self appointed nemesis on here who calls claims anonymity but appears on "scienceblogs" under the name "Skip" where he has claimed to be a scientist able to pontificate on climate change because

Furthermore, the people you are debating with are real researchers. Like Mandas, Richard S., Chris, and others I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals in my field. They and I have a basic demonstration of competence the likes of which a fool such as yourself will never comprehend.

   That there should be, at least, some truth to his claims of validity in the field was supported by the fact that neither the site runner nor any of the named people said "who he" or that they were unable to confirm being in the same scientific club as "Skip", though it was indeed obvious his real identity was known. If you are going to accept that a lying charlatan shares equality with you you must accept being known as a lying charlatan.

   Of course the idea that anybody at "scienceblogs" was in any way interested in truth or science took rather a knock when Greg Laden, who runs one of the sites, publicly claimed to be a "climate scientist" and I subsequently proved that he was in fact an unpaid assistant anthropology teacher. A more serious dent to "scienceblogs" credibility came when Greg kept his site and nobody whatsoever on their even suggested that being proven so wholly and completely dishonest and contemptuous of science was, in even the slightest way, reprehensible.

    Obviously such action is incompatible with any "sciencebloggers" being in any way honest or scientific.

    Anyway Skip promised me that he was going to not only come on my blog and engage, for the rest of time, on what, for him, passes as intellectual debate but also to do so on any other site I commented on (which would include the sole "scienceblog" site that allows a certain amount of free speech.. In fact he limited himself to this site since presumably making himself look like and idiot on a wider stage seemed not to be a good idea.

   Occasionally his comments have contributed what purported to be a matter of fact (for example his repeated claims that the government's Chief Science adviser never made the ludicrous claim that by 2100 "Antarctica will be the only habitable continent" and that the papers reporting it were nonexistent/lying because they are controlled by deniers/mistaken). All his claims of fact were easily and amusingly proven false. The rest of his posts have focused on calling me a Nazi, saying that everybody in Glasgow shags the sheep which are everpresent in our city centre & that the proof that I am a Nazi is that I tend to delete his obscenities (though I specifically do not delete argument that attempts to be fact based).

   Having at least some trace of personal integrity and not being a complete hypocrite Skip has at least been equally willing to denounce all the scienceblogs sites which censor, not obscenity but rational debate.
      Being a wholly corrupt, child abusing*, animal he hasn't.

      So who is this expert in climate science Skip. Well not entirely coincidentally, he turns out to be linked to a child abusing (*there did anybody think I was merely being discourteous when I said that earlier) organisation I have dealt with previously, NCSE (National Center for science Education more properly known as Nazi Child-abusers for the Suppression of Evidence).

     So who is he

     have a look at this account of Skip Evans, formerly of the National Center for Science Education, conversing with some of the local creationists in Madison, WI.


     Skip's account. The idea of pretending to be a real scientist seems to be presaged by a comment he adds

a couple of guys talking to Larry and Kevin the Creationists decided they were sociology professors doing an experiment to see how people reacted to complete nonsense presented as fact.


Posted by: Skip
July 27, 2010 12:43 AM

  With the NCSE connection, which I did not  connection, it appears the world of know of when I the reported the lecture by their boss on CAGW ("you can't blame her for not answering your questions - she's not a climate expert"(. Run by the Glasgow Skeptics (with grandstanding by ecofascist Green MSP Pat Harvie, previously gay government paid youth worker though I would never match the ecofascists by saying that he had ever shagged any of the aforementioned sheep) it seems the world of  anti-science spouting is even smaller and more incestuous than it previously appeared.

From the obscene thieving Nazi Child abuser's entry on NCSE

Should the disgusting animal wish to apologise or feel able make any explanation, without obscenity, or indeed should any member of BCSE feel I have been in any way unfair I extend my invitation, as normal, to give them a platform and possibly a piece of rope. If not to me it might wish to apologise to the people of Glasgow and all the sheep in Sauchiehall Street.

UPDATE It seems Skip Evans has died. No mention of cause though he was clearly relatively young. Since he didn't apologise or produce any evidence to support his lies I don't think any other comment would be appropriate.

  Some time ago i expressed surprise that while of the "28 leading scientists" the BBC claimed to have supporting catastrophic warming, only 2 were scientists, 7 were primarily or wholly concerned with foreign "aid" rather than even being "environmental" activists.

I think I have the answer to that. As you will see from the list there were also 2 from the International Broadcasting Trust who "co-organised" this with the BBC. IBT were the ones who were stupid enough to leave the "cannot ever be made public because of journalistic ethics" list on their website.

* Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace - has more than twenty years experience of developing and implementing advocacy and campaign programmes around the world on a wide range of issues.
* Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net - internationally published journalist and an award-winning TV documentary-maker on global justice issues, and the author of acclaimed books on global survival - activist not scientist
* Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China - one of two Greenpeace reps
* Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia - Tearfund is to help "local churches overcome poverty" - eco-activist
* Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund - 2 from the same charity
IBT - Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment - Cheryl trained as a journalist ...working for BBC ..Christian Aid...Cheryl is a trustee of the International Broadcasting Trust - no mention of studying to become a "leading scientist".
IBT - Mark Galloway, Director, IBT - International Broadcasting Trust "one of our principal activities is lobbying" - not science
* Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID - Department of International Development - government flack not scientist at all
* Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia - Association for Sustainable Investment in Asia - In 1988 she co-founded the UK's first sustainable investment unit trust ..served on environmental advisory panels for the UK Government and HRH The Prince of Wales   IBT's site explains they are:   "The International Broadcasting Trust is an educational and media charity working to promote high quality broadcast and online coverage of the developing world. Our aim is to further awareness and understanding of the lives of the majority of the world´s people – and the issues which affect them.

Our work focuses on three main areas of activity:

- lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters

- dialogue with the main public service broadcasters

- research on broadcast and online coverage of the developing world


We regularly publish research and organise events to encourage a greater understanding of the role which the media plays in engaging people in the UK with the wider world.


We are a membership based organisation. We organise briefings for our members so that they can work more closely with broadcasters and producers. For a current membership list see IBT members page"

Their list of members is essentially a list of charities, a number of which I recognise straight off as government funded (UK and international) sock puppets. It includes Tearfund, who provided 2 of these 28 and Comic Relief which is essentially a BBC organisation - thus the BBC paying an organistation to lobby the BBC that it is right of them to censor. They don't say exactly how the funding works out but clearly they are not puttin g out the begging bowl and i am certain the taxpayer ultimately pays.

Looking at the description of what it was founded for, the IBT was originally a lobbyist for the foreign "aid" industry. Looking at their list of productions it is also clear that this is how they started though latterly have moved into the "catastrophic warming" lobby industry. In the same way the American NCSE started as an anti-creationist "charity" moving into warmism despite their boss being unable to talk on the subject becase "she isn't a climate expert".

  Clearly what happened is simply that the BBC asked their "co-organisers" to do the organising and they just ran through their address book to include anybody who could be relied on to support the BBC line - not just not requiring that they be scientists but not requiring that they know anything about  even warming alarmism.
---------------------------
  Meanwhile Brian Monteith has an article about the BBC, "BBC's bias is a big turn off" including discussion of 28gate. My most recent letter hasn't been publiched by the MSM either.