‘A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.”‘
Now some of the main stream media newspapers are withdrawing articles they previously published misrepresenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate scientists and climate science in general. The UK Sunday Times published a correction acknowledging they had misreported the “Amazongate” story, had misreported Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. They had in fact changed their story after it had been checked by Lewis and admit their changes “did not give a fair or accurate account of his views.”
Well – I guess it helps that these newspapers have published retractions and apologies. But what about all those blogs (including several New Zealand ones) and conservative newspapers and websites throughout the world who faithfully repeated the lie – but remain silent now?
You might be interested to hear that Richard North is looking at pursuing legal action against George Monbiot over his comments regarding the “Amazongate” case, which has recently taken on a new twist
Richard North is looking at pursuing legal action…
That’s a song that has been sung before.
“Pursuing legal action” sounds very strident and ominous but…it’s wise to wait until the paperwork has officially been filed and real money spent on lawyers.
Remember those “scientists” that were going to sue Al Gore?
What ever happened to that legal action?
Hmm? Link.
Yeah, “legal action”. Sounds oh so serious. However, the “list of 30,000 scientists” turned out to be a fraud from start to finish. (Link) And nobody in their right mind should listen to an ignorant tool like Coleman on issues of science. (Link)
This is a fairly typical tactic by the denier machine, if they can’t get acceptance of their points because they used misinformation or disinformation then they resort to threatening litigation. Their game is simple, keep their names in the limelight as much as possible because the more exposure they have then more people (who have not dug deeper into the facts) are likely to believe them.
All the while the denier machine keep up their racket to deceive the world the planet continues to warm, CO2 levels keep increasing and the disintegretion of ice sheets accelerates. We all have a responsibility to speak out against the likes of Dr. Richard North and to speak the truth without fear or favour.
The original complaint from North is that Monbiot libelled him on his blog, despite the fact that North had quickly issued a correction about the 40% claim in the Amazongate case after originally claiming that there was no substance to the claim.
This is the substance of the North vs Monbiot case.
The “new twist” is that there appears to be no peer-reviewed material supporting the IPCC’s claim that a small change in climate could cause a loss of 40% of vegetation within the Amazon.
The work by Daniel Nepstad specifically refers to deforestation by fire etc, not climate change
The backstory is that the work is sponsored by WWF, and they have a substantial financial interest in the Amazon, in the form of potentially $60 billion in carbon credits.
The latter, of course, is not part of this legal dispute.
Fred you seem to be repeating the original claim – the one the Sunday Times withdrew and apologized for after the Press Council upheld Lewis’ complaint.
That’s not a new twist – it’s a repeat of an old lie which had been caught out and apologized for.
Sure, North, Brooker, and their denier mates are busy repeating the old claims and trying to confuse the issue.
It is this which becomes the substance of “Amazongate” – the undisputed fact that the IPCC makes an assertion about the Amazon rainforest relying on “grey” (WWF) literature. This in turn references a paper which does not support the assertions made. (It is later claimed (by the WWF) that the actual reference on which the WWF authors rely had been accidentally omitted; this turns out to be non-peer-referenced as well).
Fred, you are putting your trust in the words of the guilty party’s here.
The Sunday times withdrew and apologized, acknowledging that their claim of lack of peer reviewed papers was incorrect and that that had misrepresented Lewis.
Of course the guilty party’s are now trying to confuse the issue. That is to be expected. So it is disingenuous to quote their attempts to me.
Fred, you are confused. Lewis took the complaint to the Press Council, not North. The Sunday Tines was repeating North’s lies and had to withdraw and apologise. North is one if the guilty parties and cannot be trusted on this question.
North corrected his statement in his blog post dated Jan 21st 2010 here
in which he stated :
However, being “human” myself – although some would hotly dispute that assertion – I appear to have made a mistake in my analysis, charging that in the document referenced by the IPCC, there is no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.”
So, North had corrected his statement, that the 40% figure was in the original WWF, non-peer reviewed paper. The Sunday Times picked up the story, despite a link to the correction on the original blog site.
For this, I do not think it is reasonable to call North a liar.
However, if you read the link above, you will see the argument stands that the peer-review backing for the 40% claim by the IPCC seems to be non-existent, being based on unrelated subjects such as forest fire and logging activity, not directly on climate change.
Fred – I did read your link and just couldn’t see anything new, or indeed anything of any value, in it. He is just into self justification. He is the guilty party and you would be foolish top rely on his story.
If you read the links I have posted, you will see that Monbiot did not read the correction that North posted, and then went on to make libellous statements
Furthermore, if you or your commenters are able to provide evidence of peer reviewed literature that supports the claims made in the WWF document, then I would be very interested to see them.
“North was right to point out that the IPCC should not have relied on a report by WWF for its predictions about the Amazon. Or he would have been right if it had. But it hadn’t. The projection was drawn from a series of scientific papers by specialists in this field, published in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are referenced in the first section of the IPCC’s 2007 report (pdf).”
I suggest you follow his advice and read through the report.
This whole thing is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I can understand why North and Booker will try to muddy the waters. But the article has been retracted and the apologies made. North’s complaint is really of no interest now.
As I said – widen your sources. Don’t rely on such biased blogs.
I suggest you follow his advice and read through the report
Chapter 7 of WG1. Would you like me to read the entire chapter, all the referenced papers therein, and find the supporting evidence for the 40% claim?
Why should I do this, when the claims were apparently from WG2?
Bishop Hill expresses this better than I can:
The projection was drawn from a series of scientific papers by specialists in this field, published in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are referenced in the first section of the IPCC’s 2007 report (pdf).
Now this should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing – Monbiot appears to be saying, in essence, that the correct citations are in the WG1 report somewhere. But where? He links to one chapter of WG1, when the dispute is about a statement made in the WG2 report. And which paper or papers is he actually citing?
This skirting round the question of the actual papers that support the allegation that 40% of the Amazon is at risk from climate change suggests strongly that there are none. What is more one is tempted to conclude that George Monbiot knows it.
be a devil. You could read the IPCC documents – it wouldn’t hurt.
Well, I could read the entire Chapter 7. But where would it lead me?
Wouldn’t it be better if someone came out and provided the citations for us?
After all, Nepstad et al have stated that their work is based on peer reviewed literature, but have failed to provide the references, as far as I know.
The fact that the ST has issued an “apology” is a complete irrelevance to this issue.
Nepstad’s comments on the Monbiot site don’t really clarify anything.
The retraction and apology by the Sunday Times is extremely important. It has done a lot to puncture the credibility of denier claims. That is important.
I just wish the the NZ ACT Party and their mates would retract their attacks on our scientists. And withdraw their defamatory comments.
It is one thing top discredit them scientifically but a public retraction would have more effect.
But I am not holding my breath.
As for reading the original sources. Why not. It is surely the normal, honest thing to do. It is lazy and inviting problems to ask someone else to do it for you.
( I am sure if I did the reading for you and pointed out your mistakes you would still reject it).
Where would it lead you? You might find you claims are wrong. That’s progress. And you might find they are correct. Also progress becuase you could then speak with authority.
I have managed to find the following link
which I will review in the morning
The rest of us will probably be up all night in breathless anticipation.
Or not.
Sadly, I had to get this from a “denier” blog.
Yes, it is very sad that you get your information from denier blogs.
Why?
What’s the point?
Go check out NASA.
They do the work.
If you got your science information exclusively from science sources like NASA and the British Antarctic Survey and the CSIRO and the Royal Society and NOAA and the National Academies of Sciences and the USGS…then every single one of the climate denialist talking points would just fade away.
Climate denialism is a hothouse flower.
It cannot survive in the real world.
It exists only on denialist sites, cable-tv and a gullible media.
It the same deal with HIV denialism or tobacco/cancer denialism or moon-landing denialism.
Go to any scientific community on the planet and the illusion is exposed.
Denialism is unhealthy.
Get out of the intellectual ghetto.
Embrace reality.
I think there are a couple of issues we are conflating here.
There is, firstly, the issue around the validity of the claim that 40% of the Amazon is at risk from slight changes in rainfall
Secondly, there is the issue that Simon Lewis complained to the PCC that he had been misquoted by the Sunday Times.
Richard North has done a before and after version of the interview here
The main issue that stands out is that the ST claimed that Lewis said
“are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups”, on top of the claim that they “fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.”
which he didn’t say.
Therein seems, from what I can see, the nub of the issue. Lewis was misquoted as criticising the use of grey literature by the IPCC.
In fact, his comments on the Nepstad paper indicate the confusion over the references that involve logging and fire, rather than direct consequences of climate change, which still lines up with the critics, from what I can see.
There is quite a good article on where these claims came from in the IPCC report here which shows how the draft text changed in the IPCC report over time, perhaps distorting the original message in the Nepstad paper.
Fred – I don’t think anyone is really interested in your little investigation.
Except to say – it intrigues me that you are prepared to do a lot of work searching through (and quoting) denier blogs – but you refuse to actually read the IPCC reports!
I would have thought that would be the first place to go to check out the facts.
You say “I thought it was the job of scientists to provide references” and then seem to think they will arrive by magic, by telepathy.
The usual method for discovering the references is to read the bloody reports.
Which provides some of the references to his paper
I am sorry again to be referencing a “denier” blog, but this is where Nepstad decided to post his info.
My comments above about Simon Lewis still stand. This is an issue separate from the science and was I believe an attempt to protect his reputation in the environmental advocacy movement.
@Cedric Thanks for the advice re NASA and Aids Denial, I’ll bear that in mind.
I should have added that the final report on Phil Jones’ CRU and the “climategate” emails is due about now. While all the other inquiries have shown the “climate” propaganda to be a hoax and shown the science to be good this one could well find evidence of some unethical behaviour in regard to FOI applications, etc.
Mind you – there is the police inquiry. No-one is holding their breath for that result. Pity.
Oh look, a weekend away and my as you said:I don’t think anyone is really interested in your little investigation has now become a full blown story in the blogosphere.
Monbiot has issued an an apology to Richard North, and the latter has shown that there is no substance to the IPCC claims over the 40% reduction in Amazonian rainforest to a slight change in precipitation due to climate change.
Monbiot’s comments specifically are:
There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do.
…
It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn’t have been”.
Yes, Fred, and I notice you missed out the bit where Monbiot quotes the papers (and references them) showing that there was a consensus that 40% is probably an underestimation.
And his “apology” to North was more an acknowledgement that he hadn’t been aware of North’s own correction of his (North’s) mistake in a late article.
God, you guys stretch the truth, font you. Anything to sew confusion, I guess.
But, while the denier echo chamber has tried hard to give their fictional account legs most people have been more interested in the Penn State University report exonerating Mann. The twittersphere seem to think this is the dying rattles of
The attacks on Mann have been cowardly and persistent. And yet he keeps being found to be correct!
Nor could there be – Fred. We are talking about the future.
Come on Fred – that’s pathetic (Unless you have a time machine).
Sure models have their problem but they are far better than reading tea leaves or guessing. That’s why governments rely on them while recognising their limitations.
Fred, what models have you been involved with, specifically?
Were you involved in their development or just their use?
If you weren’t involved in developing the models, who actually developed them?
Would appreciate that information as I have personally been involved with agricultural models, recognise their limitations but also know they can be extremely useful. As Hansen points out models should always used with knowledge of their specific limitations and advantages. In agriculture we basically use them as decision support systems.
This issue is if course another red herring as your silly comment on lack of empirical data from the future shows. And, again a comment from Hansen. Our information on climate change and it’s causes comes firstly from paleoclimate studies, then current measurements, and then finally from computer models.
The important use of models in climate science has been not predicting or forecasting future changes but in explaining past changes. These explanations have highlighted that it is impossible to explain temperature changes since the 70s without incorporating human inputs. I don’t see that your problems of calibration arise here – the main thing is getting the data.
Our ability to estimate likely future temperature changes is limited partly by model limitations but probably more importantly by assumptions of future economic scenarios. Consequently there are lots of provisos, probabilities and estimate ranges produced.
I imagine this is certainly not outside the expectations of governments who are used to economic models. In fact, after that experience I imagine they would be quite impressed by climate models and similar models of the natural rather than social/economic world.
Now you can stand back, knowing you have no responsibilities in the matter and criticise from a distance. But governments have to govern and the scientists they employ have to give the best advice possible. Understandably neither governments or specialists are impressed by your advice to guess, read the tea leaves or use a time machine to collect empirical data. Especially as many if the claims and actions of deniers are so weird they are discredited from the start. Also their industry and extreme conservative links and backing are pretty clear.
Now, there are plenty if areas in climate science where out knowledge is vague and/or debated. That’s normal in science. And it’s healthy.
Where the consensus lies though is that global temperatures are rising. The information for that is unequivocal. And the evidence for human input currently being a major factor in this is very strong. A confidence level of over 90%.
Do you agree with that consensus (forget about red herrings like the Amazon)? Would you refuse to ensure your house or take preventative steps if specialists advised you it had a 90% probability of catching fire?
That is the conclusion coming out if the IPCC reviews. It convinces governments it is so good. Mind you the political will for possible mitigation or adaption procedures doesn’t exactly match the evidence.
I really question the moral position of deniers who irresponsibly stand on the sidelines with carping and irrelevant criticisms. Tell lies about the evidence. Slander honest scientists and their findings and continually attempt to cast doubt by ranting on about minor issues like the Amazon, referencing mistakes, etc.
(Do you support the slanderous attacks made by local deniers on our NIWA scientists?)
Especially as so many of these deniers will admit that global temperatures are increasing and even that humans are partly responsible. They pretend to quibble only over exactly what part of the increase is due to humans.
Of course a lot if these deniers are more concerned with industry profits or promotion of an extreme right Wong ideology. Stuff humanity.
That is my opinion, based on my scientific and engineering background.
Says the anonymous guy expressing his solitary opinion on the internet.
(…awkward silence…)
If you want to make a scientific criticism of a specific model then you must enter the scientific arena.
The internet doesn’t cut it.
A climate model of the Amazon over a 100 year timescale seems ridiculous to me.
Maybe you just don’t have an accurate understanding of how climatologists do their job?
My experience is with Oil exploration geophysics and reservoir engineering. I have both developed and used models.
Maybe your experience in using and developing models gives you a false confidence in understanding climate models?
Perhaps they are not really the same?
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Dunning-Krugger Effect.
Oil exploration? – now you tell us.
Wasn’t it you who was moaning about conflicts of interest by the WWF?
Anything else about your affiliations that you’d care to share with readers?
Good point Richard. I must have been half asleep to miss that.
In surveys of scientists it is very noticeable that those actually involved in (and therefore up with) climate science overwhelmingly accept the IPCC main conclusions.
However those involved with exploration and mining give luke warm acceptance — something like 50%.
The reasons is of course obvious.
Just underlines my point about deniers being more concerned with industry profits than truth.
Richard,
Are you suggesting that Oil Exploration is wrong or immoral?
Of course not, I use plastics, pharmaceuticals etc. I’d like like that situation to continue, for myself and my descendants.
I drive a car fitted with an internal combustion engine (there not being much of an alternative on offer -yet). I like oil.
That doesn’t colour my acceptance of reality though, I also accept that our current oil-based economy is unsustainable in the long-term and that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is contributing to a warming the planet.
I also understand what forever means, which, strangely, is a concept most economists seem not to fully grasp.
When the fossil fuel is all burned up over a two century long energy orgy, it’s gone … forever…
Oil exploration is of course not immoral – no one suggested that.
Nor is a prejudice/bias for one’s industry – common amongst professionals.
However, when the bias allows someone to actively campaign against scientific facts, to slander other scientists, to misrepresent information, to select and distort information in a dishonest way.
I don’t have an issue with the scientists as such.
But I have a big issue with the IPCC and NGOs, esp the WWF, who appear to be manipulating science for financial gain.
Rip-offs are an integral part of market force economies.
Show me a market without them.
Until we stop worshiping at the alter of market forces I’m afraid we’re pretty much stuck with cap and trade schemes.
Our NZ ETS will not reduce emissions (Govt forecast)
It will cost billions in a wealth transfer to mostly foreign owned forestry companies (55% I believe)
After that, we are left with a Kyoto (or follow-on) obligation, where we can purchase “carbon credits”, mostly from scammers.
We know that our efforts are a complete waste of time, because of China and India’s exponential growth in CO2 emissions (1 coal station per week in China)
So, after destroying our economy, to no benefit whatsoever to the environment, leading to widespread poverty, suicides, and a transfer of wealth to the so-called developing world (parts of China have higher property prices than Auckland), are you still willing to say that these acts were “moral”?
Fred, I am a scientist, not an economist. I don’t feel confident about commenting significantly on the ETS. Personally I am more attracted to Hansen’s fee and dividend scheme. However, my daughter who is an economist tells me it won’t work.
These sort of issues are for people in general and politicians to decide – not scientists alone. That’s not where their skills lie.
However, that’s where discussion should take place. It is dishonest to attack the science when that is not the issue. The economics/politics are.
There are clearly extreme political/economic interests involved in this discussion. People like Wishart who raise the bogey of One World Government and transfer of wealth to developing countries. They don’t fool me. You should read the political parts if Wishart’s book. They are disgusting.
And I think they are the worst people for slandering science in their own economic/political and ideological interests.
It us quite dishonest and immoral of them to hide their ideologies behind a false science facade.
Reality does not care that you find it politically or economically inconvenient.
You cannot magically make a science topic such as the Earth’s climate bend to your worldview.
It’s not subject to a vote or an opinion poll.
If you want to honestly appraise a scientific issue then you have no choice but to listen to the science. NASA is not part of some deep, dark global conspiracy.
They did not lie to you about the moon landings.
They are not lying to you now about climate change.
Cedric
I share your enthusiasm for NASA, at least in their prime during the Moon landings. I remember getting up from bed as a young boy to watch Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.
It was an inspiring and life-changing moment for those of my generation.
However, I think we have to accept that in the big bad world of global economics, there will be bad guys and good guys.
I accept that there are scientists doing good work helping us understand climate change.
I also realise that that will be “hangers-on” who have other motives.
This is a part of human culture, in whatever field.
In this respect, I am deeply suspicious of those that propose carbon trading.
We can solve most of our sustainability issues on a local level, in my personal opinion.
However, I think we have to accept that in the big bad world of global economics, there will be bad guys and good guys.
In that one sentence, you have abandoned science.
In that one sentence, you have embraced paranoia and unfounded suspicion.
That’s very wrong of you.
I accept that there are scientists doing good work helping us understand climate change.
No you don’t.
I wish you did.
NASA are good scientists.
They don’t get any better.
They work to help us understand climate change. They have done so for decades.
The same goes for the Royal Society.
And the CSIRO.
And NOAA.
And every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.
You have turned your back on them.
You have rejected the science.
Just like the moon-landing deniers and the HIV deniers.
In this respect, I am deeply suspicious of those that propose carbon trading.
You conflate policy with the science.
Take everything that you fear about carbon trading and flush it down the toilet.
Reality is not subject to a vote or an opinion poll.
If you were to be ruthlessly disciplined about how you get your science information, if you insisted upon only listening to those scientific bodies that do the work with their own hands and are prepared to defend their work in the scientific arena with peer-reviewed research…then the hothouse flower of climate denialism fades away.
You want to claim to be a man of science?
Good.
Then act like it.
Please.
Demand evidence.
Demand peer-review.
Demand the very best.
Leave the trashy no-name blogs, the paranoia and the political hacks alone.
Look to the science.
To be fair Fred says he doesn’t dispute the science of GW. He doesn’t seem to like the currently proposed medicine though.
IMO such a position would seem more palatable if it proposed alternative mechanisms for carbon reduction instead of simply making destructive comment on current ones.
I also have my reservations about the efficiency of cap and trade market mechanisms in controlling the problem.
I haven’t the expertise to suggest any better alternatives that would be acceptable within current economic orthodoxy, so until then it’s on with carbon trading.
From Moon landings to suicide bombers. an interesting carer progression…
They don’t mention suicide bombers at all.
That’s just something you made up with your diseased imagination.
Stop being a moron.
NASA is perhaps the best scientific community on the planet.
They fully support the science that tells us that AGW is real.
There is no conspiracy.
They are not run by “the commies” nor ” the terrorists”.
It’s just science.
NASA does not live in a little echo chamber of reality denial.
There’s no “ahem” about it.
I welcome honest discussion but this silly sniping and childishly thinking you are achieving a grand design to spread your faith by planting links is pointless.
I understand the psychological problem you are having giving up this little charade and that your desire to have the last word keeps bringing you back.
However, if you really want to leave but can’t seem to drag yourself away just say the word.
I can assist you break the habit by listing you in the spam filter. That will do the job.
You can’t judge much from such a cherry picked sound bite.
It’s s sensible move from Obama, to attempt to re-engage with science a religious culture that seems hell-bent on clinging to medieval systems. As such I applaud the move, but it’s not what head of NASA should perhaps regard as a primary objective.
Ken,
You obviously do not understand the point I am trying to make.
The US is currently at war with 2 Moslem states.
Islamic fundamentalist have declared a global jihad in which they will accept only their point of view.
The West is on a suicide mission to destroy itself with its obsession with Global Warming and political correctness.
If we are still alive in twenty years, you may well reflect on this, as we live under Sharia law, freezing in the dark and cold in an energy-less civilisation.
As David Solway said in his book “The Big Lie”, it is quite exhiliarating watching a civilisation come to an end, whilst its inhabitants dreamily wander along as though nothing is happening.
The US is currently at war with 2 Moslem states.
Untrue on two levels.
1) Iraq was a secular state when invaded by US and (some of) it’s allies, currently it remains nominally secular.
2) The US is not currently at war with the state of Afghanistan.
Really, Fred, that whole post is a serious “own goal” and not likely to inspire much confidence in its content or conclusions.
Yes, reaction to the “climategate” scandal and resulting climate denial offensive has been slow coming. Inevitable, I guess, becuase it has required investigation and reporting. We had the Pennsylvania State University inquiry which cleared Michael Mann (see Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”) and the UK parliamentary and independent Royal Society inquiries which cleared Phil Jones and the Cimatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia (see Climate scientist Phil Jones exonerated and Officially a fake scandal from science perspective).
Open Parachute 
You might be interested to hear that Richard North is looking at pursuing legal action against George Monbiot over his comments regarding the “Amazongate” case, which has recently taken on a new twist
LikeLike
Richard North is looking at pursuing legal action…
That’s a song that has been sung before.
“Pursuing legal action” sounds very strident and ominous but…it’s wise to wait until the paperwork has officially been filed and real money spent on lawyers.
Remember those “scientists” that were going to sue Al Gore?
What ever happened to that legal action?
Hmm?
Link.
Yeah, “legal action”. Sounds oh so serious. However, the “list of 30,000 scientists” turned out to be a fraud from start to finish.
(Link)
And nobody in their right mind should listen to an ignorant tool like Coleman on issues of science.
(Link)
LikeLike
If you go to George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian it now has a notice saying “This article is the subject of a legal complaint made by Dr Richard North” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc
This is a fairly typical tactic by the denier machine, if they can’t get acceptance of their points because they used misinformation or disinformation then they resort to threatening litigation. Their game is simple, keep their names in the limelight as much as possible because the more exposure they have then more people (who have not dug deeper into the facts) are likely to believe them.
All the while the denier machine keep up their racket to deceive the world the planet continues to warm, CO2 levels keep increasing and the disintegretion of ice sheets accelerates. We all have a responsibility to speak out against the likes of Dr. Richard North and to speak the truth without fear or favour.
LikeLike
What’s the “new twist”, Fred?
LikeLike
The new twist:
The original complaint from North is that Monbiot libelled him on his blog, despite the fact that North had quickly issued a correction about the 40% claim in the Amazongate case after originally claiming that there was no substance to the claim.
This is the substance of the North vs Monbiot case.
The “new twist” is that there appears to be no peer-reviewed material supporting the IPCC’s claim that a small change in climate could cause a loss of 40% of vegetation within the Amazon.
The work by Daniel Nepstad specifically refers to deforestation by fire etc, not climate change
See
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/credo-in-unum-tipping-point.html
The backstory is that the work is sponsored by WWF, and they have a substantial financial interest in the Amazon, in the form of potentially $60 billion in carbon credits.
The latter, of course, is not part of this legal dispute.
LikeLike
Fred you seem to be repeating the original claim – the one the Sunday Times withdrew and apologized for after the Press Council upheld Lewis’ complaint.
That’s not a new twist – it’s a repeat of an old lie which had been caught out and apologized for.
Sure, North, Brooker, and their denier mates are busy repeating the old claims and trying to confuse the issue.
But they would, wouldn’t they?
LikeLike
This article probably explains the background quite well
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/moonbat-too-far.html
It is this which becomes the substance of “Amazongate” – the undisputed fact that the IPCC makes an assertion about the Amazon rainforest relying on “grey” (WWF) literature. This in turn references a paper which does not support the assertions made. (It is later claimed (by the WWF) that the actual reference on which the WWF authors rely had been accidentally omitted; this turns out to be non-peer-referenced as well).
LikeLike
Fred, you are putting your trust in the words of the guilty party’s here.
The Sunday times withdrew and apologized, acknowledging that their claim of lack of peer reviewed papers was incorrect and that that had misrepresented Lewis.
Of course the guilty party’s are now trying to confuse the issue. That is to be expected. So it is disingenuous to quote their attempts to me.
You need to widen your sources!
LikeLike
The guilty party as you refer to it was the Sunday Times which lost a PCC (Press Complaints Council) case against them.
The North/Monbiot case is a separate one, of libel.
North’s article here explains it quite well.
The Amazongate case is still wide open, in my view, and any legal action between North and Monbiot will keep the spotlight on this.
LikeLike
Fred, you are confused. Lewis took the complaint to the Press Council, not North. The Sunday Tines was repeating North’s lies and had to withdraw and apologise. North is one if the guilty parties and cannot be trusted on this question.
LikeLike
I never said that North took the case to the PCC.
However, you have accused North of lies.
North corrected his statement in his blog post dated Jan 21st 2010
here
in which he stated :
However, being “human” myself – although some would hotly dispute that assertion – I appear to have made a mistake in my analysis, charging that in the document referenced by the IPCC, there is no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.”
So, North had corrected his statement, that the 40% figure was in the original WWF, non-peer reviewed paper. The Sunday Times picked up the story, despite a link to the correction on the original blog site.
For this, I do not think it is reasonable to call North a liar.
However, if you read the link above, you will see the argument stands that the peer-review backing for the 40% claim by the IPCC seems to be non-existent, being based on unrelated subjects such as forest fire and logging activity, not directly on climate change.
LikeLike
Fred – I did read your link and just couldn’t see anything new, or indeed anything of any value, in it. He is just into self justification. He is the guilty party and you would be foolish top rely on his story.
As I said – you need to widen your sources. It wouldn’t hurt for you to start with Monbiot’s article Sunday Times admits ‘Amazongate’ story was rubbish. But who’s to blame?
LikeLike
Ken,
I have read Monbiot’s article above.
If you read the links I have posted, you will see that Monbiot did not read the correction that North posted, and then went on to make libellous statements
Furthermore, if you or your commenters are able to provide evidence of peer reviewed literature that supports the claims made in the WWF document, then I would be very interested to see them.
LikeLike
Fred. Monbiot says:
“North was right to point out that the IPCC should not have relied on a report by WWF for its predictions about the Amazon. Or he would have been right if it had. But it hadn’t. The projection was drawn from a series of scientific papers by specialists in this field, published in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are referenced in the first section of the IPCC’s 2007 report (pdf).”
I suggest you follow his advice and read through the report.
This whole thing is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I can understand why North and Booker will try to muddy the waters. But the article has been retracted and the apologies made. North’s complaint is really of no interest now.
As I said – widen your sources. Don’t rely on such biased blogs.
LikeLike
I suggest you follow his advice and read through the report
Chapter 7 of WG1. Would you like me to read the entire chapter, all the referenced papers therein, and find the supporting evidence for the 40% claim?
Why should I do this, when the claims were apparently from WG2?
Bishop Hill expresses this better than I can:
The projection was drawn from a series of scientific papers by specialists in this field, published in peer-reviewed journals, some of which are referenced in the first section of the IPCC’s 2007 report (pdf).
Now this should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing – Monbiot appears to be saying, in essence, that the correct citations are in the WG1 report somewhere. But where? He links to one chapter of WG1, when the dispute is about a statement made in the WG2 report. And which paper or papers is he actually citing?
This skirting round the question of the actual papers that support the allegation that 40% of the Amazon is at risk from climate change suggests strongly that there are none. What is more one is tempted to conclude that George Monbiot knows it.
link
Now, I am more than happy to accept that there is peer reviewed evidence for the 40% claim; it’s just that none has been found yet.
I am sorry that you have no further interest in this story.
LikeLike
Ah, Fred. You have taken my advice and widened your sources.
But, come on. Another denier blog!!
be a devil. You could read the IPCC documents – it wouldn’t hurt.
And you could also give serious consideration to what climate scientists are saying, not just the deniers. They are just not reliable.
LikeLike
be a devil. You could read the IPCC documents – it wouldn’t hurt.
Well, I could read the entire Chapter 7. But where would it lead me?
Wouldn’t it be better if someone came out and provided the citations for us?
After all, Nepstad et al have stated that their work is based on peer reviewed literature, but have failed to provide the references, as far as I know.
The fact that the ST has issued an “apology” is a complete irrelevance to this issue.
Nepstad’s comments on the Monbiot site don’t really clarify anything.
LikeLike
The retraction and apology by the Sunday Times is extremely important. It has done a lot to puncture the credibility of denier claims. That is important.
I just wish the the NZ ACT Party and their mates would retract their attacks on our scientists. And withdraw their defamatory comments.
It is one thing top discredit them scientifically but a public retraction would have more effect.
But I am not holding my breath.
As for reading the original sources. Why not. It is surely the normal, honest thing to do. It is lazy and inviting problems to ask someone else to do it for you.
( I am sure if I did the reading for you and pointed out your mistakes you would still reject it).
Where would it lead you? You might find you claims are wrong. That’s progress. And you might find they are correct. Also progress becuase you could then speak with authority.
Your current authorities lack credibility.
LikeLike
Ken,
This is waffle.
I am looking for references.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the WWF report if someone can provide references.
Where are they?
Naturally, I understand your offence at me quoting “denier” blogs like Bishop Hill, who interestingly often have IPCC contributors adding comments to.
Isn’t that odd?
LikeLike
Fred – “I am looking for references.”
Do what everyone else does when they want to find references. read the bloody documents. Don’t go trolling on internet blogs – they won’t help you.
Do the work yourself. Everything is available.
LikeLike
read the bloody documents
Which documents, Ken?
Would you like me to read the entire AR4?
I thought it was the job of scientists to provide references.
But then, the chaps at WWF are not really scientists, are they?
LikeLike
Which documents, Ken?
Would you like me to read the entire AR4?
Good idea.
Read.
I thought it was the job of scientists to provide references.
If you have not read the references then you would not know.
Do your own research.
Don’t expect strangers on the internet to spoonfeed you an education.
Exercise your brain.
Maybe you can be the plucky, armchair investigator that discovers that…it’s all a lie.
😉
LikeLike
I have managed to find the following link
Click to access NepstadetalEcol.07.pdf
which I will review in the morning
Sadly, I had to get this from a “denier” blog.
LikeLike
I have managed to find the following link
which I will review in the morning
The rest of us will probably be up all night in breathless anticipation.
Or not.
Sadly, I had to get this from a “denier” blog.
Yes, it is very sad that you get your information from denier blogs.
Why?
What’s the point?
Go check out NASA.
They do the work.
If you got your science information exclusively from science sources like NASA and the British Antarctic Survey and the CSIRO and the Royal Society and NOAA and the National Academies of Sciences and the USGS…then every single one of the climate denialist talking points would just fade away.
Climate denialism is a hothouse flower.
It cannot survive in the real world.
It exists only on denialist sites, cable-tv and a gullible media.
It the same deal with HIV denialism or tobacco/cancer denialism or moon-landing denialism.
Go to any scientific community on the planet and the illusion is exposed.
Denialism is unhealthy.
Get out of the intellectual ghetto.
Embrace reality.
LikeLike
I think there are a couple of issues we are conflating here.
There is, firstly, the issue around the validity of the claim that 40% of the Amazon is at risk from slight changes in rainfall
Secondly, there is the issue that Simon Lewis complained to the PCC that he had been misquoted by the Sunday Times.
Richard North has done a before and after version of the interview here
The main issue that stands out is that the ST claimed that Lewis said
“are demanding that the IPCC ban the use of reports from pressure groups”, on top of the claim that they “fear that environmental campaign groups are bound to cherry-pick the scientific literature that confirms their beliefs and ignore the rest.”
which he didn’t say.
Therein seems, from what I can see, the nub of the issue. Lewis was misquoted as criticising the use of grey literature by the IPCC.
In fact, his comments on the Nepstad paper indicate the confusion over the references that involve logging and fire, rather than direct consequences of climate change, which still lines up with the critics, from what I can see.
There is quite a good article on where these claims came from in the IPCC report
here which shows how the draft text changed in the IPCC report over time, perhaps distorting the original message in the Nepstad paper.
LikeLike
Fred – I don’t think anyone is really interested in your little investigation.
Except to say – it intrigues me that you are prepared to do a lot of work searching through (and quoting) denier blogs – but you refuse to actually read the IPCC reports!
I would have thought that would be the first place to go to check out the facts.
You say “I thought it was the job of scientists to provide references” and then seem to think they will arrive by magic, by telepathy.
The usual method for discovering the references is to read the bloody reports.
I would have thought that was obvious.
LikeLike
Fred – I don’t think anyone is really interested in your little investigation.
OK, good bye Ken.
LikeLike
Just wanted to add this.
Nepstad added this comment to WUWT:
Which provides some of the references to his paper
I am sorry again to be referencing a “denier” blog, but this is where Nepstad decided to post his info.
My comments above about Simon Lewis still stand. This is an issue separate from the science and was I believe an attempt to protect his reputation in the environmental advocacy movement.
@Cedric Thanks for the advice re NASA and Aids Denial, I’ll bear that in mind.
LikeLike
Mann cleared by Penn State
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/1/mann-cleared.html
LikeLike
For those interested in proper sources you can download the Penn State Report here (“Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann.”).
LikeLike
I should have added that the final report on Phil Jones’ CRU and the “climategate” emails is due about now. While all the other inquiries have shown the “climate” propaganda to be a hoax and shown the science to be good this one could well find evidence of some unethical behaviour in regard to FOI applications, etc.
Mind you – there is the police inquiry. No-one is holding their breath for that result. Pity.
LikeLike
Oh look, a weekend away and my as you said:I don’t think anyone is really interested in your little investigation has now become a full blown story in the blogosphere.
Monbiot has issued an an apology to Richard North, and the latter has shown that there is no substance to the IPCC claims over the 40% reduction in Amazonian rainforest to a slight change in precipitation due to climate change.
Monbiot’s comments specifically are:
There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do.
…
It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn’t have been”.
LikeLike
Yes, Fred, and I notice you missed out the bit where Monbiot quotes the papers (and references them) showing that there was a consensus that 40% is probably an underestimation.
And his “apology” to North was more an acknowledgement that he hadn’t been aware of North’s own correction of his (North’s) mistake in a late article.
God, you guys stretch the truth, font you. Anything to sew confusion, I guess.
But, while the denier echo chamber has tried hard to give their fictional account legs most people have been more interested in the Penn State University report exonerating Mann. The twittersphere seem to think this is the dying rattles of
The attacks on Mann have been cowardly and persistent. And yet he keeps being found to be correct!
LikeLike
Once again, we are in the position where the only “evidence” is a computer model.
There is no empirical evidence to support the claims about the Amazon. Nothing, nada, zilch.
LikeLike
Nor could there be – Fred. We are talking about the future.
Come on Fred – that’s pathetic (Unless you have a time machine).
Sure models have their problem but they are far better than reading tea leaves or guessing. That’s why governments rely on them while recognising their limitations.
LikeLike
Given that the WWF have significant commercial interest in the Amazon, can we really expect them to be impartial on the science?
LikeLike
Once again, we are in the position where the only “evidence” is a computer model.
Computer models.
Them there new-fangled things.
Who needs ’em?
Pshaw, I say, pshaw!!
LikeLike
Cedric,
An uncalibrated computer model that has an unknown predictive value is worse than useless.
It is misleading, and an honest scientist or engineer would be better so say “we don’t know”
That is my opinion, based on my scientific and engineering background.
LikeLike
Fred, what models have you been involved with, specifically?
Were you involved in their development or just their use?
If you weren’t involved in developing the models, who actually developed them?
Would appreciate that information as I have personally been involved with agricultural models, recognise their limitations but also know they can be extremely useful. As Hansen points out models should always used with knowledge of their specific limitations and advantages. In agriculture we basically use them as decision support systems.
This issue is if course another red herring as your silly comment on lack of empirical data from the future shows. And, again a comment from Hansen. Our information on climate change and it’s causes comes firstly from paleoclimate studies, then current measurements, and then finally from computer models.
LikeLike
Ken
My experience is with Oil exploration geophysics and reservoir engineering. I have both developed and used models.
Unless these models are calibrated against real data (i.e down hole log info) they rapidly diverge from reality.
A climate model of the Amazon over a 100 year timescale seems ridiculous to me.
LikeLike
Fred.
The important use of models in climate science has been not predicting or forecasting future changes but in explaining past changes. These explanations have highlighted that it is impossible to explain temperature changes since the 70s without incorporating human inputs. I don’t see that your problems of calibration arise here – the main thing is getting the data.
Our ability to estimate likely future temperature changes is limited partly by model limitations but probably more importantly by assumptions of future economic scenarios. Consequently there are lots of provisos, probabilities and estimate ranges produced.
I imagine this is certainly not outside the expectations of governments who are used to economic models. In fact, after that experience I imagine they would be quite impressed by climate models and similar models of the natural rather than social/economic world.
Now you can stand back, knowing you have no responsibilities in the matter and criticise from a distance. But governments have to govern and the scientists they employ have to give the best advice possible. Understandably neither governments or specialists are impressed by your advice to guess, read the tea leaves or use a time machine to collect empirical data. Especially as many if the claims and actions of deniers are so weird they are discredited from the start. Also their industry and extreme conservative links and backing are pretty clear.
Now, there are plenty if areas in climate science where out knowledge is vague and/or debated. That’s normal in science. And it’s healthy.
Where the consensus lies though is that global temperatures are rising. The information for that is unequivocal. And the evidence for human input currently being a major factor in this is very strong. A confidence level of over 90%.
Do you agree with that consensus (forget about red herrings like the Amazon)? Would you refuse to ensure your house or take preventative steps if specialists advised you it had a 90% probability of catching fire?
That is the conclusion coming out if the IPCC reviews. It convinces governments it is so good. Mind you the political will for possible mitigation or adaption procedures doesn’t exactly match the evidence.
I really question the moral position of deniers who irresponsibly stand on the sidelines with carping and irrelevant criticisms. Tell lies about the evidence. Slander honest scientists and their findings and continually attempt to cast doubt by ranting on about minor issues like the Amazon, referencing mistakes, etc.
(Do you support the slanderous attacks made by local deniers on our NIWA scientists?)
Especially as so many of these deniers will admit that global temperatures are increasing and even that humans are partly responsible. They pretend to quibble only over exactly what part of the increase is due to humans.
Of course a lot if these deniers are more concerned with industry profits or promotion of an extreme right Wong ideology. Stuff humanity.
Quite immoral!
LikeLike
That is my opinion, based on my scientific and engineering background.
Says the anonymous guy expressing his solitary opinion on the internet.
(…awkward silence…)
If you want to make a scientific criticism of a specific model then you must enter the scientific arena.
The internet doesn’t cut it.
A climate model of the Amazon over a 100 year timescale seems ridiculous to me.
Maybe you just don’t have an accurate understanding of how climatologists do their job?
My experience is with Oil exploration geophysics and reservoir engineering. I have both developed and used models.
Maybe your experience in using and developing models gives you a false confidence in understanding climate models?
Perhaps they are not really the same?
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Dunning-Krugger Effect.
LikeLike
My experience is with Oil exploration
Oil exploration? – now you tell us.
Wasn’t it you who was moaning about conflicts of interest by the WWF?
Anything else about your affiliations that you’d care to share with readers?
LikeLike
Good point Richard. I must have been half asleep to miss that.
In surveys of scientists it is very noticeable that those actually involved in (and therefore up with) climate science overwhelmingly accept the IPCC main conclusions.
However those involved with exploration and mining give luke warm acceptance — something like 50%.
The reasons is of course obvious.
Just underlines my point about deniers being more concerned with industry profits than truth.
LikeLike
Richard,
Are you suggesting that Oil Exploration is wrong or immoral?
LikeLike
Richard,
Are you suggesting that Oil Exploration is wrong or immoral?
Of course not, I use plastics, pharmaceuticals etc. I’d like like that situation to continue, for myself and my descendants.
I drive a car fitted with an internal combustion engine (there not being much of an alternative on offer -yet). I like oil.
That doesn’t colour my acceptance of reality though, I also accept that our current oil-based economy is unsustainable in the long-term and that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is contributing to a warming the planet.
I also understand what forever means, which, strangely, is a concept most economists seem not to fully grasp.
When the fossil fuel is all burned up over a two century long energy orgy, it’s gone … forever…
LikeLike
Richard,
I don’t really have a problem with that.
Cheers
LikeLike
Oil exploration is of course not immoral – no one suggested that.
Nor is a prejudice/bias for one’s industry – common amongst professionals.
However, when the bias allows someone to actively campaign against scientific facts, to slander other scientists, to misrepresent information, to select and distort information in a dishonest way.
That is immoral.
LikeLike
Since when was I slandering scientists?
I was merely stating the true facts about the WWF claims about the Amazon.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with any bias that I might have.
LikeLike
I don’t have an issue with the scientists as such.
But I have a big issue with the IPCC and NGOs, esp the WWF, who appear to be manipulating science for financial gain.
I would suggest that this will get much more interesting in the next few weeks
LikeLike
And that is unsubstantiated slander typical of extreme deniers.
A tactic for avoiding reality.
LikeLike
Wait for the court case, I suggest.
LikeLike
Moral judgements take place in ones head – not in courts.
LikeLike
Don’t say I didn’t warn you that you will be ripped off.
LikeLike
Rip-offs are an integral part of market force economies.
Show me a market without them.
Until we stop worshiping at the alter of market forces I’m afraid we’re pretty much stuck with cap and trade schemes.
LikeLike
I am interested in your moral stance, Ken
Our NZ ETS will not reduce emissions (Govt forecast)
It will cost billions in a wealth transfer to mostly foreign owned forestry companies (55% I believe)
After that, we are left with a Kyoto (or follow-on) obligation, where we can purchase “carbon credits”, mostly from scammers.
We know that our efforts are a complete waste of time, because of China and India’s exponential growth in CO2 emissions (1 coal station per week in China)
So, after destroying our economy, to no benefit whatsoever to the environment, leading to widespread poverty, suicides, and a transfer of wealth to the so-called developing world (parts of China have higher property prices than Auckland), are you still willing to say that these acts were “moral”?
LikeLike
Fred, I am a scientist, not an economist. I don’t feel confident about commenting significantly on the ETS. Personally I am more attracted to Hansen’s fee and dividend scheme. However, my daughter who is an economist tells me it won’t work.
These sort of issues are for people in general and politicians to decide – not scientists alone. That’s not where their skills lie.
However, that’s where discussion should take place. It is dishonest to attack the science when that is not the issue. The economics/politics are.
There are clearly extreme political/economic interests involved in this discussion. People like Wishart who raise the bogey of One World Government and transfer of wealth to developing countries. They don’t fool me. You should read the political parts if Wishart’s book. They are disgusting.
And I think they are the worst people for slandering science in their own economic/political and ideological interests.
It us quite dishonest and immoral of them to hide their ideologies behind a false science facade.
LikeLike
Reality does not care that you find it politically or economically inconvenient.
You cannot magically make a science topic such as the Earth’s climate bend to your worldview.
It’s not subject to a vote or an opinion poll.
If you want to honestly appraise a scientific issue then you have no choice but to listen to the science.
NASA is not part of some deep, dark global conspiracy.
They did not lie to you about the moon landings.
They are not lying to you now about climate change.
LikeLike
Cedric
I share your enthusiasm for NASA, at least in their prime during the Moon landings. I remember getting up from bed as a young boy to watch Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.
It was an inspiring and life-changing moment for those of my generation.
However, I think we have to accept that in the big bad world of global economics, there will be bad guys and good guys.
I accept that there are scientists doing good work helping us understand climate change.
I also realise that that will be “hangers-on” who have other motives.
This is a part of human culture, in whatever field.
In this respect, I am deeply suspicious of those that propose carbon trading.
We can solve most of our sustainability issues on a local level, in my personal opinion.
LikeLike
However, I think we have to accept that in the big bad world of global economics, there will be bad guys and good guys.
In that one sentence, you have abandoned science.
In that one sentence, you have embraced paranoia and unfounded suspicion.
That’s very wrong of you.
I accept that there are scientists doing good work helping us understand climate change.
No you don’t.
I wish you did.
NASA are good scientists.
They don’t get any better.
They work to help us understand climate change.
They have done so for decades.
The same goes for the Royal Society.
And the CSIRO.
And NOAA.
And every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.
You have turned your back on them.
You have rejected the science.
Just like the moon-landing deniers and the HIV deniers.
In this respect, I am deeply suspicious of those that propose carbon trading.
You conflate policy with the science.
Take everything that you fear about carbon trading and flush it down the toilet.
Don’t let it distract you from the science.
Don’t let it colour your judgement.
Don’t let your preconceptions rule you.
Reality is not subject to a vote or an opinion poll.
If you were to be ruthlessly disciplined about how you get your science information, if you insisted upon only listening to those scientific bodies that do the work with their own hands and are prepared to defend their work in the scientific arena with peer-reviewed research…then the hothouse flower of climate denialism fades away.
You want to claim to be a man of science?
Good.
Then act like it.
Please.
Demand evidence.
Demand peer-review.
Demand the very best.
Leave the trashy no-name blogs, the paranoia and the political hacks alone.
Look to the science.
LikeLike
At this point I will leave you to you little echo chamber of reality denial.
LikeLike
To be fair Fred says he doesn’t dispute the science of GW. He doesn’t seem to like the currently proposed medicine though.
IMO such a position would seem more palatable if it proposed alternative mechanisms for carbon reduction instead of simply making destructive comment on current ones.
I also have my reservations about the efficiency of cap and trade market mechanisms in controlling the problem.
I haven’t the expertise to suggest any better alternatives that would be acceptable within current economic orthodoxy, so until then it’s on with carbon trading.
LikeLike
At this point I will leave you to you little echo chamber of reality denial.
The truth is often unpalatable.
This is not about “me”.
My opinions count for nothing.
This is about the science.
Insisting on peer-reviewed research done by the professionals is the very opposite of denying reality and living in a echo chamber.
Demanding peer-reviewed research is what educated people do.
They pay good money for it.
Smart people don’t listen to every Tom, Dick or Harry like you do in order to from an opinion on a scientific issue.
NASA does not live in a little echo chamber of reality denial.
Really.
You are being played for a sucker.
LikeLike
NASA does not live in a little echo chamber of reality denial.
Ahem…
From Moon landings to suicide bombers. an interesting carer progression…
LikeLike
From Moon landings to suicide bombers. an interesting carer progression…
They don’t mention suicide bombers at all.
That’s just something you made up with your diseased imagination.
Stop being a moron.
NASA is perhaps the best scientific community on the planet.
They fully support the science that tells us that AGW is real.
There is no conspiracy.
They are not run by “the commies” nor ” the terrorists”.
It’s just science.
NASA does not live in a little echo chamber of reality denial.
There’s no “ahem” about it.
LikeLike
Useful idiots
LikeLike
Fred, I thought you had said your good byes?
I welcome honest discussion but this silly sniping and childishly thinking you are achieving a grand design to spread your faith by planting links is pointless.
I understand the psychological problem you are having giving up this little charade and that your desire to have the last word keeps bringing you back.
However, if you really want to leave but can’t seem to drag yourself away just say the word.
I can assist you break the habit by listing you in the spam filter. That will do the job.
LikeLike
You can’t judge much from such a cherry picked sound bite.
It’s s sensible move from Obama, to attempt to re-engage with science a religious culture that seems hell-bent on clinging to medieval systems. As such I applaud the move, but it’s not what head of NASA should perhaps regard as a primary objective.
LikeLike
Ken,
You obviously do not understand the point I am trying to make.
The US is currently at war with 2 Moslem states.
Islamic fundamentalist have declared a global jihad in which they will accept only their point of view.
The West is on a suicide mission to destroy itself with its obsession with Global Warming and political correctness.
If we are still alive in twenty years, you may well reflect on this, as we live under Sharia law, freezing in the dark and cold in an energy-less civilisation.
As David Solway said in his book “The Big Lie”, it is quite exhiliarating watching a civilisation come to an end, whilst its inhabitants dreamily wander along as though nothing is happening.
LikeLike
Where did you make that point, Fred, and how does it lead on from my post?
All I saw were little irrelevant sniping remarks and links. That’s not discussion.
LikeLike
The point was around “useful idiots”
Do you not understand that phrase?
It was aimed at NASA, not you
LikeLike
The US is currently at war with 2 Moslem states.
Untrue on two levels.
1) Iraq was a secular state when invaded by US and (some of) it’s allies, currently it remains nominally secular.
2) The US is not currently at war with the state of Afghanistan.
Really, Fred, that whole post is a serious “own goal” and not likely to inspire much confidence in its content or conclusions.
LikeLike
The US is engaged in war with Moslem extremists. Nit picking.
The Taliban are now controlling much of Pakistan.
The war in Afganistan is lost.
The west is actively courting anti-Israel parties.
Maybe you should read Melanie Phillips “Londonistan” to see where this is heading.
LikeLike
Maybe you should read Melanie Phillips “Londonistan”
see what I mean, own goals.
LikeLike
No I don’t see what you mean. Please explain
LikeLike
Very well; citing extreme fundamentalist faith-based literature doesn’t tend to cut it in here.
LikeLike