Fairfax and Stuff.co.nz: presenting propaganda as opinion and lies as fact

This morning the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by well-known Aussie climate denier David Evans, and later in the day the Fairfax New Zealand news web site Stuff.co.nz decided to feature the Evans article in their science section. Two small problems for Fairfax: Evans “opinion” piece is nothing more than propaganda masquerading as opinion, and contains straightforward lies about our understanding of climate.

We last met Evans back in April, when he unleashed on an unsuspecting world a risible political analysis of those who want action on climate change. Even so, the SMH, for reasons best known to themselves, chose to let him loose on their pages to present a “scientific” argument. The problem? Evans scientific understanding is as weak — if not weaker — than his political analysis. His deliberate misrepresentation of the state of scientific understanding of the climate system renders his “opinion” on the matter worthless, and calls the editorial judgement of the SMH and Stuff.co.nz into question.

One point will suffice to demonstrate just how blatant Evans’ lies are. Here’s an early section of his piece:

We scientists can calculate how much warming results directly from an increase in CO2 levels. We know how much CO2 levels and temperature have risen since pre-industrial times, but the warming directly due to CO2 is only a third of the observed warming. The theory assumes no other major influence on temperature changed, so the effect of the CO2 must have been amplified threefold, presumably by changes in the atmosphere due to humidity and clouds.

There is no observational evidence for this amplification, but it is nonetheless built into all the models. Sceptics point out that if the extra humidity simply forms extra clouds, then there would be no amplification.

The amplification Evans finds so troubling is a straightforward result of an extremely well understood phenomenon: a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour. The link between the two is described by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Moreover, there is direct evidence — observational evidence, even — of an increase in atmospheric water vapour over recent decades. That increase in water vapour means that more and heavier rain can fall, and again, that’s something that’s being observed around the world.

Unpacking all the untruths and misrepresentations in just these two paragraphs would take an article as long, if not longer than Evans’ original, but it is quite clear to anyone who understands the first thing about climate science that Evans is playing fast and loose with the truth, and doing so in order to advance a political viewpoint.

So why did the SMH choose to run Evans’ propaganda, and why were the editors of the science section at Stuff.co.nz so quick to follow their lead? The Sydney Morning Herald must surely appreciate Evans background as one of Australia’s noisier climate deniers, prominent in the campaign against the carbon tax. In recent months, much has been made of mining billionaire Gina Rinehart’s investment in Fairfax, and her demands that the newspaper company should “teach the controversy” on climate1. Did that influence the editorial decision making at the Sydney Morning Herald?

Meanwhile, the editorial team at Stuff.co.nz clearly have a problem with their science section. If there is no-one there who understands climate science — not exactly one of the more obscure corners of human endeavour — then perhaps they should just shut the section down and concentrate on providing platforms for propagandists. They seem to be quite good at doing that already.

  1. Rinehart secured a seat for a crony on the Fairfax board, but he seems to have been unable to attend any board meetings. []

160 thoughts on “Fairfax and Stuff.co.nz: presenting propaganda as opinion and lies as fact”

  1. Evans appears not to realise that water is not just held in the atmosphere in the form of clouds. In fact it’s water in its invisible, gaseous form (water vapour) that’s the positive feedback that creates the bulk of the warming we’re experiencing.

    The link between 1) the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; 2) the warming the increased CO2 causes; 3) the amount of extra water vapour that’s held in the warmer atmosphere, and then; 4) the additional warming caused by the extra water vapour in the atmosphere; is all very well known and measured by scientists. While the sun is the source of virtually all heat on our planet, there’s been no increase in the sun’s output that can account for the current warming.

    Illogically, Evans and his fellow sceptics prefer to believe that some un-evidenced effect of the sun is causing the current global warming, rather than accept that it’s caused by the well-evidenced effect of CO2 and its accompanying positive feedbacks; the best understood of which is water vapour. That’s why the warming effect of the increased water vapour is included in climate models.

    Atmospheric humidity is explained here: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/warmer_humidity.html

  2. “We scientists…” ??

    See Who is ‘Rocket Scientist’ David Evans?
    Guess not.

    Think of credibility as a credit balance.
    People and {newspapers, magazines, etc} can build credibility over a long period, and if they occasionally goof, they still have a positive balance.

    On the other hand, if they build a long record of non-credibility, that is not easily erased (by declaring equivalent of bankruptcy), but takes time and effort. One of the nice things about the Web is that non-credibilities (~debts) can be kept accessible.

    Some people are so far in credibility debt they could never get back to breakeven.

    1. Surely he borrowed ‘we scientists’ from his mentor, Professor Monckton? 😉

      If this is what the future holds for Fairfax then the Australian media landscape is a truly desolate prospect.

  3. Gareth – hopefully the Australian media will allow a rebuttal of Evans’ gaffes. Several of the Skeptical Science team of contributors are working on this.

    I think Evans greatest problem is that he has no idea how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. The ocean is, after all, where around 90% of global warming goes.

    He clearly doesn’t understand that with El Nino heat is lost from the ocean, rapidly warms the atmosphere, and much of it is eventually lost to space. That is why the satellites observe an increase in outgoing energy during El Nino, and why global surface temperatures rise during El Nino.

    Pretty basic stuff he seem completely unaware of.

    1. I think we can assume that he is well aware that his statements are counter-factual. He has played a prominent part in crafting messages explicitly designed to persuade the public that action on climate change is not needed. He is a propagandist, pure and simple. Check back to this post from 2010: Evans boasts that if his propaganda campaign is successful, “support for man-made global
      warming would shrivel and die within a year”.

      Didn’t work, did it? But he’s still trying. And the SMH and Stuff are playing along with him.

  4. Almost too cross about this to comment.
    About lazy, ill-informed journalism
    About corporate power.
    About use of “opinion” as a cover to run any old shit in the media.

    Did Stuff run anything about Muller and BEST? Reckon someone should be arguing for balance here.

    SO over it.

    Meanwhile apparently, according to Robert Manne in the Australian quarterly The Monthly, has announced the denialists have won .

    1. An interesting piece of timing, given that with post-Conversion Muller being lapped-up by the media and the Wattsgate debacle it could scarcely be clearer that the Deniers have lost the argument.

      Not to mention the Arctic ice, Greenland, mega-droughts, extraordinary floods etc..

      Forget science, that’s in the bag; what we’re seeing now in the Zombie survival of Denial is in the propaganda arena – it was always a propaganda operation, frequently facilitated by a horde of unpaid useful idiots (right, andy? 😉 ) – and is just power, pure and simple.

      But it’s power without even the figleaf of legitimacy that we’ve come to expect in the democracies. The naked intrusion of money into the political process could scarcely be more plain, along with its attendant grotesque distortions of the very democratic processes that we’re all supposed to fervently embrace.

      The only way that our existing rulers can maintain their control is to openly usurp any pretension of a commitment to the rational in what is, after all, their media, and then blatantly foist multiply-discredited tripe on the public.

      I don’t think it’s going to work, not least because all the while the world just gets hotter and crazier.

      However, social solidarity has been broken down to such an extent, particularly in the anglophone West – one of the truly monumental achievements of Capitalism – that what follows on from the blatant illegitimacy of our rulers is not necessarily going to be a revolution of sense and rationality…

      One of the most important messages I took from Parenti’s Tropic of Chaos was one of those ‘hey, you know, I knew that, but didn’t know I knew it until you pointed it out’ things; the stultifying power of Capital – it does, basically, always win; even if you beat it, like Vietnam or Cuba, the price you’re made to pay for your victory is virtually unbearable – has meant that now, with a few exceptions in, say, South America where there’s still a residue of the human spirit, virtually no-one imagines they can actually attain a better future, and hence virtually all nominally ‘revolutionary’ movements are now literally reactionary – backward-looking – and racist/nativist and/or religious/fundamentalist in character. Or simply criminal.

      It would be nice to see some evidence of a public groundswell and particularly a rising generation that isn’t lost in the world of consumer baubles, cheap flights, and cynicism. In the meantime the best thing that those of us who aren’t idiots can do is to keep up the rational case, accept that sometimes it’s just going to feel like we’re barely muddling through, and be alert for the opportunities the increasingly obvious internal-contradictions of The Stupid provide us…

      1. Interesting essay Bill. I’m not sure Muller’s “conversion” really gets a lot of traction since he has business interests in geoengineering and his daughter Elizabeth is an activist with fingers in various green initiatives.

        Furthermore, his proclamations have been largely dismissed by even William Connelley and Michael Mann.

        I haven’t realised that Watts et al has been elevated to a “gate”. I expect the details will be forthcoming, as will the updated Gergis et al paper.

        1. This ‘his daughter’ thing is pretty desperate.

          Muller confirmed what we knew already. Science is not even slightly harmed by it, and the media loves the converted skeptic thing.

          Watts rushed a ‘refutation’ into print, apparently without consulting his co-authors, hypocritically announcing the result ahead of time in an attempted Media Splash – this despite having lambasted Muller for doing the same thing previously. And his paper is, unsurprisingly, ropey, so he now has his ‘skeptical scientist’ peers back-pedalling away from him as fast as they can go. Let’s not even mention ‘time of observation bias’.

          It is, in short, a schemozzle! The global temp record and the associated trend is not even slightly assailed; please explain how the jet and air-conditioner exhausts hit the satellites!

          And, lest we forget –

          I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong

          Did you believe him? I didn’t.

          PS – glad to see you accepting Mann and Connelly as authorities. It’s safe to return to Wikipedia, then? 😉

          1. Bill, don’t forget all those cities on and under the ocean. The underwater urban heat island island effect must surely be biasing those measurements.

        2. > his proclamations have been largely dismissed by even William Connelley and Michael Mann

          Yep — but not his results. I mean, bin Laden believed in gravitation, and while one must readily admit that he was right, there is this novelty issue 🙂

            1. mustakissa August 6, 2012 at 5:02 am
              Andy, surely Isaac Newton rings a bell?

              You mean Isaac newton the former gravity denier who discovered gravity and then claimed he was never a gravity denier?

              I’m really not sure what you are getting at here. Sorry

        1. On the path to a sustainable future a large number of successful businesses will be formed which are capable and intelligent in inventing, funding or promoting the only future we can possibly have. If Elizabeth Muller intends to be a player promoting that future path then good on her!

          Would Mueller’s science be more acceptable to you if his daughter was investing in Exxon mobile perhaps? Don’t think so.

          1. Yes, sure, but someone who is active in lobbying government for green energy initiatives is hardly likely to be a bona fide “sceptic” are they?

            1. So according to your mind someone who understands the need for change because of their work in the field of climate science is not allowed to act upon their knowledge and take up the proverbial pick and shovel and work towards the solutions our society needs?

              You must have truly run out of that cool aid you were sipping…

            2. How many “bona fide sceptics” are left who aren’t on the pollutocrats payroll, I wonder?

            3. It is hard to convey my message to the Believers who don’t seem to understand the concept of vested interests.

              Perhaps some analogies might help.

              If I claimed that I was a Pro-Lifer that owned a chain of abortion clinics, do you think the general public would believe me when I stated that I suddenly dropped my “Pro-Lifer” stance and stated that my new position was that abortion was acceptable?

              Do you think the general public would think I was being genuine and honest?

            4. We agree for once, Andy. As Bob Carter and Anthony Watts are paid by fossil fuel interests via the Heartland Institute, they are hardly likely to be bona fide “sceptics”, are they?

      1. Andy, if you can’t even tell that you’re being mocked for your pathetic attempt at “smearing” Muller now that he’s accepted the science, then it is no wonder you swallow the denialist chum…

    1. The carbon brief article has been picked up at Bishop Hill.
      However, the conversion story is a good one, I admit, and has been parodied in the usual downfall video.

  5. With Muller’s conversion, it appears that the only “sceptical” earth scientists who haven’t yet publicly accepted the reality of AGW are those who – like Bob Carter and Ian Plimer – receive payment from fossil fuel interests…

    1. Rob, muller didn’t convert. Did you read the artcke?
      Presumably the likes of Richard Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, John Christie, Henrik Sbensmark, etc are all funded by Big Oil, and you have evidence of this?

      1. Read Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes & Conway, Bloomsbury 2010, to get some idea of just how long Lindzen and others on your list have been associated with campaigns of inaction on climate change.

      2. > Rob, muller didn’t convert. Did you read the artcke?

        This artcke?

        CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

        Yes, I read it… and now I read it again. I suggest you do too Andy… it’s good for the soul

            1. Explanations explanations… after Curiosity nothing can spoil my day. But it’s sure good to see you squirm

              I was referring to the article in Carbon Brief in which Muller states he was never a sceptic. This was linked at the top of this thread

              How many times do I have to repeat this point?

        1. Rob, I am not referring to the NYT article. I am referring to the article in Carbon Brief where Muller states he was never a sceptic.

          Which do you think is correct, or is he confused?

            1. Rob, I am referring to the article in Carbon Brief, not the NYT.

              The quote (which John Russell linked to upthread, is this:

              Yet the story in the press – describing a ‘skeptic’s’ Damascene conversion – doesn’t seem to make sense. In fact, in his 2009 book Physics for Future Presidents, Muller doesn’t question the fundamentals of climate science, or indeed that humans are contributing to the greenhouse effect.

              Asked if it’s really accurate to say he was ever a skeptic, Muller replies: “I have considered myself only to be a properly skeptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier – no, that’s completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic.

              Get it now?

  6. So David Evans is involved in propaganda is he?
    Hot Topic never gets involved in such parctices does it?
    It accepts that there have been temperauture extremes in the past that equal current ones. For example the 1930’s in the US produced far more highs and lows than any decade since.
    It accepts that the US was in more extreme drought in 1934 trhan now.
    It accepts that the Arctic had no ice at the North Pole in 1958 as evidenced by the photo of the US submarine sitting in ice free water at the pole.
    It accepts that the Arctic has had other periods when the ice was at similar levels to now.
    It accepts that the Antarctic has more ice than any time since satelitte measures started.
    It accepts that the current world temperautre is significantly lower than the most conservative of the IPCC projections.
    It accepts that the biggest collapse of the polar bear populations was in a period of extra cold winters when the shore ice was too thick for seals to create breathing holes.
    It accepts that Micheal Mann’s hockey stick removed known natural climate changes such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
    Moreover Hot Topic never rubbishes anyone making such suggestions as ‘deniers’ and it encourages open debate and welcomes alternative viewpoints as we seek to find out what reallly makes the climate go round.
    Yeah Right!

    1. A visitor who demonstrates the power of propaganda. Remarkably, none of the listed “facts” are true. But they are widely presented as the truth by propagandists.

    2. nNeil H, as before: Extraordinary claims require evidence. Can you give a reference to the evidence for your list of extraordinary claims please, as nobody will believe nNeil H unless nNeilH puts up references to check.

    3. Yeah, right, Neil, and the Earth is only 5,000 years old and my great-grandaddy rode a dinosaur to school, just like you see on “The Flinstones”, which was a DOCUMENTARY, people!

      1. Evidence of past climate extremes of drought and temperature in the US and also the lack of accuracy in the climate models in predicting current temperatures are contained in this presentation to the US Senate: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=858&Itemid=1
        The failed IPCC models also shows here: http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/failed-climate-models.html
        The bit about polar bears comes from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and also here: http://polarbearscience.com/2012/07/26/cooling-the-polar-bear-spin/
        That the Antarctic increasing ice is well documented and it surprises me that anyone still tries to claim it is melting. According to the US National Snow and Ice Centre, the Antarctic sea ice is growing at 0.9% per decade, though this is considered insignificant. However the East Antarctic ice shelf gained 500 billion tonnes per year in the decade up to 2003. This is equivalent to 1.2 mm sea level rise per decade.
        There are accounts of non ice breaker ships sailing around the North of Canada in the 1930’s, the Second World War, and a newspaper clipping of early last century speaks of ‘bare rocks where once ice was… fish further north… vast areas of open sea almost to the North Pole..’ etc. sounding just like a modern account.
        As for Mann’s hockey stick…It was attempted to explain the medieval warm period away by saying it was only local. But the Antarctic Ice Cores showed the ‘local’ event reached to the bottom of the world.

        1. Ye Gods and Little Fishes!

          What a load of absolute bollocks from denialist sites.
          Like your earlier posts – a large heap of untruths. Waste of time.

          The only interesting question is do you actuallly believe this propaganda, or do you just throw it around as a political exercise?

          Do you realise how ludicrous this tripe is to people who know a bit about the science and the actual data and evidence?

          1. The University of East Anglia and the British Met Office also confirmed, in a press release, that warming has been insignificant since 1995. They are not denialist sites.
            How far below the IPCC projections does the temperature have to get,or how long does it have to stay under the IPCC projections before you too will be prepared to admit that the projections are flawed and overstate the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures?

            1. The University of East Anglia and the British Met Office also confirmed, in a press release, that warming has been insignificant since 1995.

              There you go again, nNeilH, more BS straight out of your big bag of stupid.

              Provide the quote.

          1. Here is the quote:
            Sure, you will call it denialist propaganda.
            It staggers me that anything that backs AGW is fact, everything else is propaganda.
            It is very clear to me that something else is involved in driving the climate besides CO2, if indeed CO2 is more than a bit player.
            I agree a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour and this causes more warming. This is what the IPCC models are based on. But since warming is not going as fast as they projected there is obviously something else in there.
            The IPCC makes little or no allowance for negative feedbacks. I believe there must be some in there to explain the lack of warming.
            Common sense suggests there should be. If the climate had massive positive feedbacks operting it would be very unstable and would have tipped over long ago. The fact that it hasn’t is strong evidence that positive and negative feedbacks exist in approximate balance, holding our climate in a narrow band.
            There is alot more to learn yet, and I am becoming more confident that there are some very nasty surprises in store for the most dedicated of AGW believers.
            Thinking people are getting out of the AGW camp even if Muller is intent on gettiing in where he always was.
            See here: http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/242/kiwis-who-think-climate-change-is-a-problem-falls-22?gtid=8229793335267XTV.
            I do not for a moment consider the so-called deniers have lost. But science is not decided by a vote. When real world data comes in that doesn’t fit a hypothesis the hypothesis must be dumped. The British Met Service has only two more years to get 0.3 warming, based on the first article I listed. I won’t put money on them being proved right.

            1. Neil, you are drinking your ounce of “wisdom” from a poisoned well of tabloid papers and oil lobby funded bloggers. For a bit of reality on the development of the global surface temperature: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

              And as to your myth of a “missing warming”, just google “Ocean Heat Content”.

              Also check out the China coal connection. China’s dramatic increase in coal use of the last decade has caused a significant increase in SO2 emissions which has a partial dampening effect on the temperature change we otherwise already have booked.

              Nevertheless and totally against your mythology, 2012 so far has broken a significant number of heat records, causing billions of dollars of losses to the US agriculture industry and driving staple food prices up everywhere and the warming of the planet has proceeded unabated.

              Your assertion that the IPCC and the scientists advising them do not consider negative feed-backs is a blatant risible lie!!!

              Citing the paleo-climate record as “proof” of absence of positive feedback mechanisms is complete nonsense.
              We have seen much hotter climates than today for much of the geological record with sea-levels significantly higher than today. A sudden return to a climate state like that in a geological blink of the eye would wipe out a vast number of species alive today and cause horrendous conditions for humanity.

              Also at no time in the paleo-record has some mechanism return the Earth’s fossil carbon stores back to the biosphere with a couple of centuries. What we do to the system currently has no precedence. Further the Sun is now warmer than during the time of past high temperature regimes and the outcome of humanities experiment with the atmosphere may well surpass what we might expect from comparison with historic data.

            2. They don’t call it the DailyFail for nothing.

              Indeed, the absence of new high temperature records, flooding records, sea-ice extent area and volume records, giant forest fires, changes in plant and animal distributions, and prolonged and extensive droughts is a continual source of secret shame to me.

              Neil, you are living on Earth, right? Blue-green planet, third out from Sol?

              It’s warming but it’s not caused by CO2 and anyway it’s not warming. Reality isn’t determined by polling but here’s one that proves I’m right. All scrambled up with some outright lies and short excerpts from Neil’s Complete Book of I Reckon and It’s Obvious. Phhhtttt…..

            3. nNeilH
              What are you supplying that quote in support of?
              If you want to play the science card in your comments then quote some science, quote original scientific sources, not what some Stupid sitting at a tabloid news desk regurgitates from denier websites before heading out to the local pub for a lager with Haddock ‘n chips.

              Daily Mail doesn’t cut it in here.

            4. I like that mozzila plugin indea.

              [Nonsense snipped. GR]

              Of course, you could always choose not to read it.

        2. Neil,
          You are new round here
          If you want to make a point, you can use the information that Richard Muller states in his latest audio podcast.

          He basically agrees with your points above, and is now a newly appointed cardinal in the Church of Climatology.

          It’s always better to use their own propaganda to skewer them.

        3. Hosanna, Brother Neil; let Brother andy guide you in the steps of the Right-eous, and you to will attain the Promised Land, an Enchanted Realm, always Balmy – remember, we-never-said-it-wasn’t-warming! – where the CO2-soaked fields abound with Magical Ponies, just so that you can Gish-Gallop all day, and where you need never again be Burdened by the Tyranny of providing Evidence, or Sense, or Coherence, and all of those oppressively detailed Refutations can be safely ignored as the Devil’s Work…

          Oh, carry me back to The Church of The Stupid…

          1. In the “Church of the Stupid” we can still keep the lights on to see our hymns.

            Unfortunately, for those living in the UK and elsewhere, paying ten times the going rate for windpower (as submitted by Gordon Hughes to the UK parliament) will mean the scriptures of the prophet Mann and prophet Hansen will soon only be visible during daytime

            1. I’m on 100% wind, andy, and have been for years, prior to the solar panels and all.

              Yep, I’ve truly been suffering. Admittedly by actually being prepared to pay for what I believe in I’ve effectively been subsidising morons, but it’s them as should feel the shame of that!

              And I just got a letter from my Gas and Electricity supplier telling me that that wind tariff I pay has fallen 44% with the introduction of the Great Big New Tax, which has also completely failed to cripple the Australian Economy, or increase the price of anything much other than dirty energy, as it was supposed to. Did I mention the tax-cuts that go with it?

              As I say, these are not great times for your bedraggled and dwindling little Congregation, which I think I’ll now refer to as ‘The Church of the Daily Mail’, after your parish circular…

            2. bill August 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm

              I’m on 100% wind, andy, and have been for years, prior to the solar panels and all.

              Jolly good. The report by Gordon Hughes to the UK parliament showed that wind energy would cos ten times as much as gas alone.
              This is a “professor” making a “report” to a “government”.

              Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Wind scenario will reduce emissions of CO2 relative to the Gas scenario by 21 million metric tons in 2020 – 2.6% of the 1990 baseline at an average cost of about £415 per metric ton at 2009 prices. The average cost is far higher than the average price under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme or the floor carbon prices that have been proposed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. If this is typical of the cost of reducing carbon emissions to meet the UK’s 2020 target, then the total cost of meeting the target would be £120 billion in 2020, or about 6.8% of GDP.

              Unfortunately people in Britain are not able to live on “100% wind” as it only provides at most a few percent of the energy of the country, plus the public are getting sick of the rent seeking parasites chopping up their country for the subsidies at no environmental or economic gain.

            3. And I’m sure we’ll all be astonished to learn that a quick Google reveals ‘Professor Gordon Hughes’ to be working for the GWPF.

              He’s also the author of their report ‘The Myth of Green Jobs’.

              Do you ever expose yourself to information from outside the Denier bubble-world, andy?

            4. A quick Google search will reveal the Gordon Hughes is a Professor at Edinburgh University who works for Edinburgh University, who also advised th world bank on energy issues.
              He recently gave oral submissions at a parliamentary panel on wind energy in the UK.
              Sorry if he has used the GWPF as an outlet, that obviously invalidates his entire career.

              Bill, it is you living in the bubble if you had to Google Hughes name in the first place

              [No more. Wind is OT here. GR]

            5. Yep, he’s precisely the kind of ‘authority’ you never have any trouble with, andy. ‘Publishing’ via the GWPF; now, there’s credibility!…

              And I assure you I’ll have forgotten him again by this time tomorrow. Tell me again, how are all those Right-wing economists’ theories working out in Britain at the moment? 😉

              I notice you didn’t answer the question, though; I think it’s safe to assume that on most occasions all you’re really doing is channeling slop either doled out directly by The Sticky Bishop, or rolled into a handy ball and conveniently piled up over there by a fellow acolyte.

              And other highly-reputable sources, of course; there ought to be a T Shirt – ‘Is that true, or did you read it in The Daily Mail?’

            6. Don’t be so harsh on Andy, folks. After all, the Gordon Hughes report is “peer reviewed”:

              Foreword by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne

              Perhaps the good Lord Monckton was otherwise engaged at the time entertaining Aethon

          2. And I just got a letter from my Gas and Electricity supplier telling me that that wind tariff I pay has fallen 44% with the introduction of the Great Big New Tax

            I thought you were on 100% wind. Why do you have a gas supplier?

  7. Well-known sceptical scientist Richard Muller has finally accepted the reality of AGW, despite his research having been funded by the Koch pollutocrats.

    Who will the evidence convert next, Andy?

    1. Rob,
      Muller was never a “sceptic”, in the sense that we mean it. This is stated quite clearly in the article in the Carbon Brief that we mention above and that I quoted from.
      Did you read the article?

      1. I imagine Rob will stop mentioning Muller’s “conversion” about the same time as you stop claiming that the hockey stick is “broken”.

        (For values of “you” that include nNeil H above.)

        1. You might want to choose your friends wisely then, if you are letting Richard Muller into your fold.

          He doesn’t seem to have much time for Michael Mann or the other scientists involved in the Climategate affair.

          Incredibly, Muller asserted that “Climategate” was not a settled issue, and that the scientists involved were found to have “hidden” data. (He also asserted, without evidence to support it, that the “controversial” e-mails at the center of the pseudo-scandal were intentionally “leaked by a member of the team,” rather than hacked. He claims that “most people” believe that to be the case, though he was unable or unwilling to back up that element of his charge either.) I pointed out that eight different investigations all found that no data manipulation took place; he asserted that temperature data had been “hidden”, not manipulated. When I asked if “hiding” data was not a form of manipulation, he gave a muddled non-answer (though he made sure to get in some particularly nasty, and seemingly personal, shots at acclaimed Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann).


          1. You also might find the audio commentary in the above “BradBlog” link interesting.
            Muller is interviewed and takes pot shots at Michael Mann, the UEA scientists, Al Gore (he states that AIT is inaccurate and exaggerates)
            He makes statements like “hurricanes are not increasing in intensity”, polar bears are not under any threat, the Himalayan glaciers are not melting, etc etc

            He makes the claim (valid in my view) that exaggeration and untruths don’t help the scientific case.

            There is clearly no love lost between Muller and Mann either. He takes several pot shots against Mann during the interview

            It is well worth a listen, about 48 mins in length

        2. You don’t get it, do you, andy?

          Muller made all sorts of pompous pronouncements about how the temp record was a crock, etc., and only someone of his awesome stature could come along and put it all to rights.

          Result? Science wins.

          And that’s it.

          He can waffle on with more arrogant tripe about how he still doesn’t believe X, Y or Z in fields where he’s not an expert until the cows come home – the whole point is that when he had to settle down and do the work rather than mouth-off it was the folks who know what they are talking about who were vindicated – not him.

          This established the credibility of the folks who know what they’re talking about – not him.

          Understand? So he’s finally caught up on what every sane person knew at the turn of the Century – so what? He’s not our problem, andy, he’s yours.

          And, of course, the whole BEST fiasco has destroyed whatever traces of credibility your heroes Watts and Montford may have hoped to lay claim to. Off they go to doo-lally pasture with their good friend Lord Monckton. May they all get exactly what they deserve for the remainder of their lives.

          If you want to waste your life clinging on to your outmoded faith with this bunch of rag-tag, multiply discredited renegades that’s your problem. But the wind has very-definitely changed. You lot might still get some ‘popularity = truth’ style traction with that unfortunately large number of reactionary fools who are uninterested in actual reality if it conflicts with their cherished shibboleths, but in actual science and for anyone who still thinks facts are important you have sustained an injury from which you will, quite simply, never recover…

          1. Muller is not “my” problem

            I don’t belong to a church that only accepts a narrow range of views

            It was you and your acolytes that were shaking your pom poms at the great news that Muller had “converted”

            His BEST results show nothing new, and the science is still not settled. The attribution statements he made are meaningless.

            1. > Muller is not “my” problem

              The amount of hot air you spend on him suggests otherwise.

              Squirm baby squirm…

            2. mustakissa – Barry Woods has kindly transcribed a recent interview with Muller (that I alluded to previously) at WUWT. Since it is verboten to link there you can find it for yourself.

              He demolishes several sacred cows of yours during this interview.

              Perhaps you’d like to read this and explain why I should be squirming?

            3. I don’t care Andy. I don’t care. You do.

              It is entirely uninteresting what an individual with Muller’s history said or didn’t say, believes or doesn’t believe. His only residual value is in annoying the heck out of individuals like you 😉

            4. You don’t care what Muller says. Good. we can scratch this thread then.

              Why even bother?

    1. Rob – Muller never had a “U Turn”. He was never a sceptic according to his article in the Carbon Brief. However, judging by the radio interview Iinked to earlier, he still has most of the reservations that a lot of “sceptics” have about climate change activism.

      It’s hard to see that anything has changed really, other than the fact that Muller has a book to sell.

      1. Indeed, Andy, nothing has really changed, as Muller’s U-turn and conversion to the “warmist” camp comes at least a decade after the AGW signal was firmly established.

        From the interviews I have seen, the reason for his tardiness is very apparent – a distinct lack of imagination.

        For instance, he says that the Koch brothers are genuine seekers after truth, and that fracking for natural gas is the solution to AGW.

        At least he’s honest, however, unlike such “sceptics” for hire as Carter, Soon and Plimer.

        1. Indeed, nothing has really changed, as Muller’s U-turn and conversion to the “warmist” camp comes at least a decade after the AGW signal was firmly established.
          Rob – Muller was never a ‘sceptic” in the sense that he disputed the basic greenhouse theory or presumably it is something to be worried about or that it is dangerous.

          You can read about this in the article on “Carbon Brief” that was linked above

          1. Andy – you can read about Muller’s conversion from climate sceptic to “warmist” in the Herald, NYT, Guardian and quality media everywhere.

            After the Heartland expose and meltdown debacle, this is yet another nail in the coffin for Watts, Carter and the other denialist Koch-suckers.

            1. Ron, why do you use the word ” conversion “. Do scientists get ” converted”.

              He is skeptical of the hockey stick, thinks the UEA scientists behaved improperly, thinks Al Gore is rubbish, says that Hurricanes are not increase in intensity etc. You can hear him saying this with his own voice, or you can read the Guardian. Your choice.

            2. By the way, the Koch brothers pronounce their name Coke, so your schoolboy joke doesn’t make sense to those on that side of the pond.

            3. And in Australia we’re witnessing the heart-warming spectacle of Andrew Bolt back-peddling at light speed away from the [cough] ‘Galileo Movement’ – you know, that charming group of strident, superannuated AGW Deniers he’s been acting as an ‘advisor’ to.

              You see, the trouble with the crank-magnetism that so afflicts Denial is that you end up with such very ‘interesting’ friends. The Galileos also apparently believe in some other, um, let’s just say ‘historically precedented’, conspiracies, including global domination by ‘major banking families’ that form a ‘tight-knit cabal’; and are so concerned about it that their leader even took the time to drop over to Bolt’s blog to point out to what, after all, is just the kind of crowd they’d be hoping to work, how it all works.

              And I notice we haven’t heard a peep about that other major embarrassment genius – The Third Viscount Christopher Walter Monckton of Brenchley – since his enthusiasms became so palpably – and so publicly – um, ‘diverse’, that even the monumentally selective attention of Deniers was unable to to continue to feign ignorance.

              Denial really is unravelling quite (blackly) entertainingly. And rapidly. The clowns’ antics have finally collapsed the Big Top; it’s only a shame that so many of the world’s onlookers will also be decked by crashing beams and canvas…

              Still, there’s always the courts. 😉

            4. Bill, can you please define what you mean by “denial”?
              Using specific numbers and parameters if possible.

              By your definition, I presume that Richard Muller and Dave Frame are “deniers”.


      1. Well then, Andy, let me take you through it slowly: despite having no qualifications beyond a high-school diploma, climate change sceptic Anthony Watts criticises actual climate scientists for their “mistakes” and pretends to conduct leading-edge “research” to establish the “truth” of global warming.

        He is paid handsomely by fossil fuel pollutocrats for this propaganda, whilst claiming that it is the climate scientists themselves who are corrupt and only in it for the money.

        That’s quite a joke, wouldn’t you agree?


        1. Why should I believe what is written in Sourcewatch?

          Who writes this stuff and how much, exactly, is Anthony Watts paid?
          Do you have any documentary evidence other than the usual smears that we expect from you?

          1. That’s even funnier, Andy, as Watts himself writes on WUWT:

            While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore


            Of course, Al Gore is not pretending to be a climate researcher who understands climate better than all those real scientists who write peer-reviewed papers based on actual observations…

            As for documentary evidence of payments, I’m sure you recall the Heartland board papers featured here a few months ago:



            1. It’s so funny Rob I actually had to lie down, my sides were aching.
              The thought that a blogger might get paid a few bob now and then is just shocking, shocking I tell you.

              Of course, it;s OK for Joe Romm etc to get paid. They are the Good Guys ™

              Now about the $100 billion or so that has been spent on climate change research. What exactly has that bought us?

            2. bill August 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm

              Well at this rate I might find you on the seabed sometime soon.

              Krabby Patties all round?

  8. Well, Andy, since you raised the topic…

    What if doubt on climate change is being deliberately promoted by the polluting companies with most to lose? 
One claim made by some who deny climate change is an issue is that it is some kind of money-spinning conspiracy on the part of the environmental movement.

    This seems to ignore which side most of the money is still on. Three of the top four earning companies in the world are oil companies, part of the sector with most to lose by curbs on climate emissions.

    ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP earn about US$1.3 trillion between them a year, about 10 times the entire New Zealand GDP. If ExxonMobil were a country, its GDP would put it in the top third of nations worldwide. 
That sort of money generates a lot of momentum and power. In comparison, WWF, recognised as one of the largest environmental charities in the world, received US$600 million in 2011.

    The top three oil companies match that about every four hours. 
Given the enormous stakes, the resources at their fingertips, and the legal obligations for their top executives to protect their shareholders’ assets and interests, it would be surprising if the oil companies didn’t do something to combat this serious threat to their existence.

    To follow their influence, it seems logical to follow their money. For example, in 2007 a prominent US organisation that denies the threat of climate change, The Heartland Institute, gave US$25,000 (NZ$32,000) to the NZ Climate Science Coalition, and US$45,000 (NZ$59,000) to the International Climate Science Coalition, both staunch climate change deniers.

    The Heartland Institute acknowledges that it received regular funding from ExxonMobil from 1998-2006. Heartland also acknowledges that a public relations advisor for ExxonMobil, Walter Buchholtz, served on Heartland’s board of directors while still working for the oil firm.

    ExxonMobil appeared in a report released just last month among many large US companies supporting organisations continuing to undermine climate change science, often in contradiction of their own public environmental policies. 
But how does this affect us?

    Well, most of the recipients of this corporate largesse are essentially public relations companies that do no scientific research of their own: their job is to get selective information into the public domain to sway public opinion on behalf of those who pay their bills. So misleading information distributed by them appears on many websites, and even in the mouths of pundits who deny climate change is an issue on radio and television.

    And the key is that for their efforts to succeed it is not necessary for people to believe everything they say. It is only necessary that enough manufactured doubt remains to provide an excuse not to take the concerted action that is urgently needed, and would so seriously affect the fossil fuel industry.

    This is not the first time this has happened. There is now ample evidence that similar strategies were employed by big businesses to attempt to ward off regulations on cigarette sales in the 1960s and the ban on lead in petrol in the mid-1990s, long after their damaging effects were well understood.

    The Heartland Institute, for one, still campaigns on the smoking issue. It accepted years of donations from cigarette companies and a former board member, Roy Marden, worked for the cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris/Altria during some of his time on Heartland’s board. 
So it comes down to this: who do you really want to believe?


        1. Sorry, remind me what qualifications you need to be a “climate scientist”.
          Can you also define what a “climate scientist” actually is, and name some prominent ones in NZ and their qualifications that support their title.

      1. I’m sorry, you want me to provide evidence of WWF’s interests in REDD and the Amazon, which is easily found online, yet Rob Taylor is free to smear anyone he wants by quoting “Sourcewatch”, which is run by whom exactly?

        1. If they’re so easy to find, provide them. Unreferenced assertions don’t cut it, Andy.

          Rob referenced Sourcewatch. You can easily answer your own question by going there and looking around. You’ll find the “smears” are all carefully referenced.

          How are you getting on with Merchants of Doubt? Or perhaps you avoid material that challenges your world view…

            1. You are correct: referencing Watts and Booker as credible sources will earn you derision. In the absence of anything more substantial, I’ll give the WWF the benefit of the doubt.

              Having met Erik Conway I can only say that your judgement of his character is as flawed as your take on climate science.

              For the uninitiated: I stumbled over this parody of a comment by Andy at David Farrar’s blog:

              The fact is we know virtually nothing about how CO2 interacts with the complex non-linear system that is our atmosphere.

              At least, I assume it was a parody, because I can’t believe that the real Andy posting here is quite so stupid.

            2. Yes of course it is me. We do know virtually nothing about the climate, and judging by comments here we know virtually nothing about energy and economics either.

              Conway stated on the Kim Hill programme that “the science was settled 20 years ago” (absolutely ridiculous) and he didn’t contact Singer before smearing him in his book.

            3. Utter tosh, Andy. What you are saying amounts to “I know virtually nothing about the climate”. Wilful ignorance is not a a pretty sight, and a very poor way of making policy decisions.

              Please point to the factual errors concerning Singer in Merchants of Doubt. The authors were extremely careful to make sure that everything in the book about him is well-documented fact.

            4. At least my comment on DPF’s blog was actually about climate
              The thread rapidly degenerated into discussions of sexual lubricants.

  9. Keen followers of the views of the subject of this post, David Evans, might be interested to read Watching The Deniers analysis of a 2009 Evans article that ties in rather uncomfortably with the denier/anti-Semitism links being uncovered in Australia at the moment.

    1. Great, so now we really are being compared with “holocaust deniers”

      Did it ever occur to you that many of the sceptical scientists are actually Jewish and might take offense to this?

      1. Predictable faux outrage. That’s not what WTD is arguing, as the note at the top of his post makes clear.

        The point is that some of the more prominent deniers, as Andrew Bolt has discovered and attempted to distance himself from, express their views in ways that are suspiciously close to anti–Semitism.

        People of Jewish heritage exist on both sides of this argument.

  10. Gareth: some useful facts you might want to know about MoD and its history:
    1) Singer threatened to sue Naomi and Science for her review of Chris Mooney’s book in Science, for which the relevant quotes were:
    ‘Mooney points out that in many cases, the same groups and individuals have been involved in multiple misinformation campaigns. Consider global warming and ozone depletion. Two leading deniers of the reality or severity of anthropogenic global warming—S. Fred Singer and Sallie Baliunas—previously vociferously denied the link between chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and depletion of stratospheric ozone. Although his views lie well outside the mainstream of expert scientific opinion and it has been a long time since he regularly published in the refereed literature, Singer has been repeatedly invited to testify in Congress. Both he and Baliunas have links to the George C. Marshall Institute, founded in 1984 to defend Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative against the majority opinion of expert physicists that it was ill-conceived. Since then, the institute has claimed to support “sound science” in public policy while promoting positions that run against the mainstream of scientific opinion but are consistent with an uncompromisingly anti-regulatory ideology. In recent years, it has received funding from ExxonMobil, presumably not coincidentally linked to its efforts to deny global warming (4). The plot thickens further. One of the institute’s founders and its current chairman of the board, Robert Jastrow, has written books promoting intelligent design (5-7). Frederick Seitz, its chair emeritus, is well known in the scientific community as a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. Less well known is his role in the 1980s as a principal adviser to the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in its support of biomedical research that might cast doubt on the links between tobacco and cancer (8). ‘

    Naomi supplied meticulous backup to Science … Singer’s lawyer just evaporated. This story was gleefully told to me by a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences. Whenever Naomi speaks at Stanford, I usually see a few NAS members in the audience.

    2) Singer lied to the IRS on his tax forms, in possibly the silliest way imaginable, claiming Fred Seitz as Chairman for 2 years after he was dead. The PDF has a long section on Singer.

    3) The Third Santa Fe Conference was run by Peter Chylek, a Heartland Expert, who included both Singer and Monckton(!) in this conference. A post by an attendee noted:

    ‘ Petr Chylek stood up after Fred Singer’s presentation (in which Singer presented old uncorrected UAH MSU data that suggested cooling) and said emphatically, “Denying the warming makes no sense!”.’

    So, in 2011, Singer was still using out-of-date data. maybe he hadn’t noticed, just as perhaps he hadn’t noticed Seitz’s passing. 🙂

    4) Merchants of Doubt got a major award from the History of Science Society, The Chair of the Committee was later on sabbatical at Stanford and came over to our place for afternoon tea and he certainly thought they deserved it. (However, we did not give him Marmite and Vegemite as we did for a well-known Kiwi climate scientist and his Aussie fiance the following week. Probably just as well.)

    5) I attend AGU meetings and have met Erik there, and see Naomi off and on. I *know* they tried very hard to get things right.

    1. Thanks John. Having interviewed Naomi and spoken with Erik at a conference in Wellington (we were on a panel together), I appreciate the lengths they went to make sure their facts were unimpeachable.

    2. They didn’t “deny” the ozone depletion science. There is still a lot of uncertainty on this topic.

      However, uncertainty needs to be punished. Doesn’t it?

      It confuses the public

      1. Singer most certainly did deny the science. In 1980 he argued in the Wall Street Journal (sounds familiar), that it was all a scare, that there was no proof CFCs were responsible, and that the observed ozone depletions were temporary and local.

        You really need to check your facts, Andy. It seems that you know as little about the people you support as you do about climate science.

        1. Tell me Gareth, what is the Ozone “hole” doing now?

          Have you checked recently?

          Maybe you should check some facts and see what the science says

          1. Tell me Andy, have you considered the impact of a cooling stratosphere on ozone chemistry? And what might be causing that cooling?

            Maybe you should play “science” in the comments at Kiwiblog, where you might increase the average IQ a little.

            1. Ignorance as a debating tactic. How novel. I thought that was restricted to the commentariat at µWatts, but it seems you want to bring it here.

              If you don’t know the answer to your own question, then you have some reading to do. I suggest you start somewhere other than your usual link fodder.

            2. I’ve heard enough about CFC and the Ozone Hole to know that the science was a bit suspect and that there were some commercial interests involved. Other than that general interest in the topic has pretty much fizzled out

              No one bothered that much (apart from those that it cost a lot of money) because we didn’t need to re-engineer the entire world economy in order to manufacture non-CFC based fridges.

              It’s a little bit ironic that the Chinese are now manufacturing CFCs so they can claim the carbon credits for its destruction, The so-called HFC-23 scam) and at least until recently Kiwis were paying for this via our ETS.

              The law of unintended consequences bites again.

              From the article I linked above, I see the factory where they destroyed the CFCs is in Hangzhou China. I was over there a couple of years ago – rather sobering thought.

            3. “I’ve heard enough” you say – but from what sources? Sounds like you’re desperately keen to minimise a successful global effort to prevent damage to the atmosphere. Right from Fred Singer’s playbook, of course.

            4. I’ve heard enough about CFC and the Ozone Hole to know that the science was a bit suspect


            5. Yes there are plenty of references about CFCs and the ozone issue.
              You can just Google it. We are all busy earning money to pay our gas bills.

            6. Behold the Denier!

              Because if you believe one anti-scientific, paranoiac conspiracy theory, most-likely you believe them all. And , in some risible Hollywood-meets-Ayn-Rand ‘heroic’ narrative imbecility, you don’t need evidence, you just need ‘your gut’ to know you’re right. The mentality of the action-movie vigilante writ large…

              Far-Right, pseudo-‘Libertarian’ politics and crank magnetism is what drives the whole phenomenon.

              And scratch around a little and the same vile theories that have characterised reactionaries everywhere – and in all eras – are still there, though the post-WWII advances of humanism have meant they have had to attempt to conceal them somewhat. Which they resent strongly: when such people decry ‘Political Correctness’ this is, in fact, what they are complaining about.

              It’s also blackly ironic – and deeply disturbing – when the people who are The System, who have always been The System, start bleating about how they’re not going to be oppressed by it!

              Never has it been more evident that one end of the political spectrum is not only irretrievably maladapted, it’s an active threat to the survival of all of us. They’re literally prepared to take us all down with them…

            7. bill August 8, 2012 at 11:08 am

              I was merely suggesting that the science behind the ozone / CFC scare might not be as “settled” as previously thought.

              Funnily enough I was not suggesting some Zionist conspiracy to form a one world government.

              There have been many “scares” over the last few decades which have fizzled out because they were based on dubious science and vested interests.

              Unfortunately, for the terminally gullible, all these scares are a major crisis.

              For the terminally cynical like me, all these scares seem like another case of crying wolf.

              By the way, as I mentioned previously, it is precisely the climate change mitigation policies we have in place which is driving the manufacture of CFCs for the sole purpose of their destruction. I find the collision of dumb policies great to watch.

            8. There have been many “scares” over the last few decades which have fizzled out because they were based on dubious science and vested interests.

              Oooh, let’s guess, shall we? DDT, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer? There’s too many restrictions on chemical usage generally, along with pesticides, herbicides, and food additives? There’s all sorts of crap talked about heavy-metal contamination? And the bleeding-heart economy-wrecking regulators are just doing all this because they are envious of the heroic valour of Industry?

              But windfarms – wow, man, they’re dangerous!

              Truly you people are ridiculous.

            9. .
              “Funnily enough I was not suggesting some Zionist conspiracy to form a one world government.” – andyS August 8, 2012 at 11:15 am

              Not today.

              Yeah, pretty funny, funny peculiar.

          2. But windfarms – wow, man, they’re dangerous!

            Actually they are only dangerous if they fall down or burn up, or if bits of ice fall off them in the winter, or if someone gets hurt or killed why trying to fix them.

            These chemicals are bad news I know Bill. The entire universe is made of chemicals.

            I applaud Greenpeace’s attempts to ban chlorine. Once they have done that they can work on the rest of the periodic table.

            1. andyS admits that his recent spiel about the dangers of windmills is false:

              Actually they are only dangerous if they fall down or burn up, or if bits of ice fall off them in the winter, or if someone gets hurt or killed why trying to fix them.

              I see you have made no mention of the fictitious nonsense about “windmill noise.” Glad you have at last sought reason and have decided that it is just a load of fiction put out by AGW deniers and fossil fuel shills.

              Some people even welcome them in their neighbourhood:


              I guess the Scots must be masochists since they like haggis, strong whisky, porridge and like to throw trees around.

            2. Ian, thanks for that, I forgot about the wind turbine syndrome.. Thanks for reminding me.
              [Wind is OT here. GR]

            3. You know, andy, when the ground starts falling out from under you you always go into this mock ironic mode. It’s what they call a give-away.

              And then you start spouting meaningless bus-ticket inanities along the lines of ‘everything is’ or ‘everyone does’, as if if ‘everything is chemicals’ it’s bizarre to be averse to any of them! Logically, if ‘everything’ shares some attribute it’s always a question of the extent and qualities of that attribute, no?

              I mean, you cannot be serious about chlorine in it’s elemental state – is this some daft variation of ‘without salt we cannot live’? Hell, none of us can live without salt or water, so therefore we should drink the oceans! It’s all just chemicals, man, nothing to get uptight about.

              Funny how you all end up sounding like the very hippies you despise. CO2 is plant food, man! Like, restricting it is just The Man trying to like, put this major downer on me doing My Thing, man. And the Establishment scientists are only, like, down on Acid Rain because they don’t want us getting high…

            4. Bill,
              Greenpeace were trying to ban all chlorine based products

              This is a fact

              They want to ban PVC and Vinyl, for example

              [This also OT. GR]

            5. The amount of effort that Andy puts into the his commentary… if only he realized that reality is blind to his rhetorical trickery and no spin doctoring is going to change the evidence before us….
              It must hurt so much to be stuck on the wrong side of the argument for so long and so publicly and running out of any “good news” for ones cause, desperately rehashing the frozen leftovers from yesteryears debating….

  11. andyS August 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    The thread rapidly degenerated into discussions of sexual lubricants.

    [No Rob, please let’s not go there. GR]

      1. Comment #13, Rodney says: “The troubling thing is that we have scientists pretending to do science for poltical purpose. These aren’t out of context quotes. The entire so-called science of climate change is riddled with it. It will go down in history as the biggest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated. I just hope the ring leaders will be held to account.”

          1. This is nice little test case for Andy, isn’t it?

            We know he’s a cynical individual – he proudly claimed that description a day or two ago.

            I wonder if he actually believes he is sceptical though…. 😉

            How is he going to cope with this twaddle. Does he agree with Hide’s comment, which he had trouble believing Hide had made?

            Is that what Andy actually thinks? Is it, AndyS?

            Or does he display a non-partisan, almost scientific scepticism and disagree with Hide and the Minions?

            My breath is bated. I wait with a small quantity of interest to see if Andy can be bold and surprise us……

            1. I have already responded but I am under permanent moderation for a statement on another blog,

              So I can’t respond to you, sorry

        1. And now Rodney is endorsing Montford’s Hocky Stick Illusion, and describing himself as a Popperian. I knew ACT were a joke but this is making UKIP look classy. It is so too good to be true that I fear Rodney’s good name may have been hacked by the likes of Denial Depot. Is there someone here who can give us some insight into the world of serial sockpuppet creators so we can get some clarity on this?

          1. Is there someone here who can give us some insight into the world of serial sockpuppet creators so we can get some clarity on this?

            ask Andy Scrase.

    1. Same old tosh, slapped together for the willingly credulous, and not likely to have much impact beyond them. If La Raspberry’s ho-hum claims are the best you have to offer you’re clearly in trouble…

      PS Does he always look like an angry Thunderbird?

  12. I see the climate ignorati like Treadgold are clustering around Rodney’s effluvia like flies around rotting meat – how they manage to type and breathe at the same time never fails to amaze me…

    Science is indivisible; you can’t choose which bits to believe in and which to deny, as the foundational principles and methods are the same. The likes of Hide and John Roughan remind me of those who refused to attempt to understand Einstein’s relativity theories on the grounds they were “Jewish science”.

    1. Yep – truly Big Stupid is poised to take the White House, and, boy, are they being bankrolled to do it – not least thanks to the twinned imbecilities of ‘corporate personhood’ and the unholy equation that holds that unlimited funding by such ‘persons’ = ‘free speech’.

      Ryan is an outright all-season Zombie Rightist across the board – his dead-hand ‘austerity’ economic prescriptions have already had a dire impact.

      You’d hope no-one would be daft enough to vote for this combination, but then again you’d hope no-one would be daft enough to deny overwhelming scientific evidence…

Leave a Reply