With politics the road to power, science is gamed.. one reason why no one but no will ever take the gamers seriously..

And, Cindy, does that hack them off!

Not my job to do your research. If you think there’s some context for the Wilkins break up that isn’t related to the reasons given by the scientists studying the event, then please post it here.

Re Gore. The judge asked for changes to the teacher notes that accompanied the film. If that denier favourite “The Great Global Warming Swindle” were held to the same standard, it would never have been shown. (And there’s a TV standards judgement due in the UK soon, IIRC).

bat: “Wrong, if you don’t believe me maybe you could provide a list for me.”

I don’t need to list them bat, if I just wait a while you do it for me.

As for the ice shelf, look it up if you really don’t know. And no, there wasn’t to be any mention of sea ice.

“You are also showing that you don’t understand either the Argos data (which remains provisional) or the satellite data.”

How could I possibly when the ‘scientists’ don’t even understand it. But is that just because it doesn’t fit with their model projections ? I bet it would be completely understod had it showed a warming !!

I’ll gladly take your money. lol

Isn’t Tamino the one who keeps trying to breathe new life into Manns’ limp hockey stick and has been continually had his rants debunked by the guys at Climateaudit.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828

The UK judge expressly cleared Gore’s film for showing in schools. The science it contains is pretty accurate. Ask a scientist, not Monckton.

What’s the “full context” for the ice-shelf break up bat? Plan to mention “record sea ice”? Be warned – Antarctic sea ice is something completely different.

You are also showing that you don’t understand either the Argos data (which remains provisional) or the satellite data.

As for cooling versus warming – care to put your money where your mouth is? I’ll happily bet $20 on you being wrong. Tamino outlines acceptable terms here.

“Oh, so you are talking about the segment that Cindy linked to above, you have some problem with it?”

Yes I do, and what, you never picked up on that.

“The Telegraph and WSJ, along with certain blogs, seem to be your main source of information”

Wrong, if you don’t believe me maybe you could provide a list for me.

“In the ABC segment Singer’s true colours were revealed by himself.”

In your opinion.

“was what made Singer look really, really arrogant, stupidly pig headed and totally unscientific in his approach”

Again, in your opinion. He believes what he believes just like you, I or anyone else. He’s been around a lot longer than us and is probably more wise and knows this stuff better than you or I.

“And I will add that this attitude is almost universal amongst denialists (and extreme alarmists), it’s a clear sign that ideology has swept away scientific objectivity.”

This statement could easily apply to the pro AGW side.

Gareth:

“No. Gore presented a pretty accurate picture of the science at the time AIT was made.”

Cop out. If you dispise the word ‘lied’ (just like Dubya on WMD’s) he intentionally ‘mislead’ the viewer. A fact that was backed up by a UK court.

“but they should not be allowed to get away with telling porkies”

Again, so why should this only apply to skeptics ?

“The facts are alarming enough, without embellishing them. Another ice shelf gone? We could really do with some global cooling – but it ain’t happening.”

To you and your like maybe, but to me and others like myself we’re looking at a different picture.

As for the ice shelf, just another example of unprofessional non-journalistic sensationalism. I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out for you as you are probably fully aware of how irrelevant this breakage is when put in it’s full context. I’d say the important part is what was left out of the article.

“We could really do with some global cooling”

Soon my friend, soon.

“but it ain’t happening.”

Again, depends on whose data you rely on. The argos buoys show no ocean temperature rise since deployment in 2003. 30 odd satellites back that up as far as the ocean releasing heat into the atmosphere goes.

Most climate scientists are actually very cautious when speaking about their work. Even James Hansen, who is widely regarded as the most outspoken senior climate scientist, is pretty cautious when stacked up against someone like James Lovelock – who even I would probably agree was “alarmist”. I also prefer to concentrate on the science rather than the advocacy.

“He basically made stuff up in support of his point. That, to me, is unacceptable.”
Didn’t Gore do the same in AIT ?

No. Gore presented a pretty accurate picture of the science at the time AIT was made. That’s what the real scientists say (not Monckton).

The politics make me weary, not cloud my view. I would say you should pay more attention to the political side of this issue.
I will be paying close attention to the climate policies of NZ political parties in the run-up to the election, but I will be trying to take an even-handed look at their relevance and likely effectiveness rather than running them through any ideological mangle.

I did NOT label you at all for your view. The facism was refering to your seemingly diswant for the other side of the argument to be heard via the media.

I’m very happy for “the other side” to be heard in the media (and they seem to have no trouble getting exposure), but they should not be allowed to get away with telling porkies.

Climate CHANGE may indeed be real we just differ in our beliefs on the cause. And trying to scare people into submission is not the answer. Hence the term alarmist.

The facts are alarming enough, without embellishing them. Another ice shelf gone? We could really do with some global cooling – but it ain’t happening.

Asked if he was a sceptic or denier etc. he said he was a “realist”.

Asked about the scientific organisations that he disagreed with on AGW he said “they’re wrong”.

Asked if he ever woke up wondering if he could be wrong, he said “never”.

That attitude ‘I’m right, they’re wrong, no need to examine or have any doubt in my own beliefs’, was what made Singer look really, really arrogant, stupidly pig headed and totally unscientific in his approach, not the reporter, not the Greenpeace guy, Fred Singer.

And I will add that this attitude is almost universal amongst denialists (and extreme alarmists), it’s a clear sign that ideology has swept away scientific objectivity.

bat, The Telegraph and WSJ, along with certain blogs, seem to be your main source of information, eg. above in the first paragraph of your first comment on this thread you refer to a Telegraph claim in 2000 on SLR.