Quote:

Quote:


Looks like the government aiming for a double dissolution.
So much for environmentalism and workers rights

Well of course alarmists attack any dissent by attacking the dissenter Mozz...  

Dr Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist at the CSIRO and is a Fellow of the Academy of Science. His specialties are atmospheric physics and climatology. In the 1970s he was involved in the establishment of the World Climate Program and was working with the US National Climate Office in 1989 when the IPCC came into being.

I'd think he has a better idea than you Mozz.

Quote:

I read that link, and fear that only an utter imbecile would be taken in by such spurious reasoning, and blatant denialist rhetoric.
The statement from The American Physical Society was unequivocal Grendel, The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusionsand just because you choose to once more go along with the blatant BS from ultra conservative "Think Tanks", you should bear in mind that the rest of the rational world, does not.

NOT UNDERGONE ANY!!!

None!!

Zip!!

Nada!!

The editor just reading it does not count as peer review in the world of real scientists, but denialist have such low standards of honesty that they will try and claim it does.

Monckton's assertion that the newsletter Editor, reading his article was a form of PEER Review, is nothing but more pompous bleating from the most thoroughly discredited climate scientist of our time, and if anyone but denialist fanboys accept that ridiculous argument, then it only further damns their desired credibility as unbiased skeptics, rather than totally biased denialist schills.

You seriously need to get your head out of the denialist blogosphere for five minutes, and examine the reponses to Moncktons assertions, which are ridiculed by the wider scientific community for the crackpot "science"? it promulgates.

Now these real scientists are so concerned by the continued, and proven factual errors which Monckton pushes, as to have voiced serious concerns for either his sanity, or integrity, and many fear a pronounced lack of both are at play.

We see it quite often in the political arena, when former politicians make outlandish statements, to once more feel the glare of the public on them, in some vain attempt to revive past feelings of power or relevance, and the more charitable of Monckton's critics ascribe his bizzarre campaign as possibly motivated by such vainglorious desires, but others fear a more sinister motive, and point to blatant falsifications of graphs and data by him as evidence of that more sinister aspect to his climate debate vandalism.

His denialism is far beyond the usual ignorance commonly displayed by so many, because when he is lying, he most certainly must know it, because he is eminently qualified to understand it, to a similiar degree to many of the best climate scientists around, yet he goes so far as to draw graphs that blatantly, and falsely misrepresent the IPCC predictions, that no high school educated child could claim as an honest error.
The most recent glaring example of this was when he represented IPCC climate predictions as a straight line from 2002 to 2100, to try and exagerate the variation from the IPCC predictions of the last few years hadcrut temps.

He had to fully understand the false picture he was creating, but chose deceit, because it suited his argument.

That is modus operandi the denialist darlings come up with time, and time again, yet cry foul when they have their credibility impuned.
Well if they behaved in a more ethical manner, then real scientists would be far more likely to respect them, even if they are making ridiculous, but honest mistakes, unfortunately Monckton cannot even make that small claim.

So while it is unfortunate, the Ad Hominem attacks, are validated because of the very unethical behaviour that is pointed out in these attacks on denialist spruikers who choose deception over science.

Well it is supremely instructive to see you worshipping at the altar of lord fruitloop, whose credentials are unquestioned, but what is most unfortunate is that his integrity does not share the same status.

He has not gained pariah status in the scientific community for posing different, or challenging views, but for debasing himself, and the whole scientific communities' integrity by positing absurd, and worse still, deliberately deceitful propaganda pieces for reasons only he, could possibly know, while the denialist puppets lap it all up, salivating like pavlovian dogs, eagerly waiting for the next regurgitated piece of rancid drivel.

Now as I said, in regard to Paltridges book,  I will wait to see what the real scientists make of it, before I make any judgement on it's merit, or lack of merit, whichever the case may be, while you lap it up as gospel, because some denialist bloggers decided to ring your bell.

Good boy Grendel, Sit, Roll Over, .......... and what comes next may be the price that too many ecosystems have to pay, as the cost of the hubris of the contrarian mindset.

Quote:
_Grendel

Once more for the hard of hearing, or incredibly dense.
It is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists throughout the entire globe, I just happen to accept their arguments as reasoned, and reasonable.

As far as whose opinion you would trust goes, well we know very well you would agree with the local dog catcher, if he also was stupid enough to be sucked in by denialist misinformation.
The denialists don't care too much just what credentials their spokespeople have, retired weather broadcaster, oil company schill, potty peers, etc, they just need the ability to lie loudly, and longly, and know that  the dullards will lap up every deceitful word.

I am disappointed to have to say that I see you are an absolute sucker on this issue, a gullible dill who falls for the brain dead arguments of denialist scumbags.

You are also too gutless to respond to straight forward questions, which if they had been answered, would have at least allowed you to claim to be engaging the argument, but in unwavering Grendel style, you just avoid answering, evade the issue, and then abuse those who asked the question.

I just watched another denialist broadcast, where once more they put forward the ludicrous notion that all the scientists that agree with global warming do so to protect their jobs.

Now the absolute morons who spruik this denialist garbage, put forward the initial motivation for what they call the Global Warming Scam, as being that eminent scientists needed to create a world wide conspiracy to prevent them all suddenly being lined up at soup kitchens. I kid you not, that is the best motive these crackpots can invent, for what they still call a deliberate scam.

That fundamental question, which I asked you, and you refused to answer, because you know that there is no intelligent answer, so you evaded and abused instead, is something that every denialist needs to address.

Why would so many of the smartest, most committed, hard working people on the planet, need to lie about their work, or their findings?

Who amongst them initiated an intentional global scam?
Here we have an open invite to every conspirinut on the planet to join the denialist crackpots to push their personal paranoid delusions.

What was the goal of this scam?

If this claimed scam were to be successful, and global CO2 emmissions were reduced, then what terrible outcomes will we see for mankind from the devilish zionist plot?
What are the long term negative effects of reducing global CO2 emmissions?

Is there a single denialist that is not an absolute friggin arsehole?
(Honest skeptics not to be included in that derogatory generalisation)

If denialists have any faith at all in their arguments, then why do they insist on proliferating lies, and absolute misinformation, which they just repeat ad nauseum, pretending that it has not been utterly, and totally discredited.


You see the only valid arguments denialists have in their favour is that some journalists do not objectively report the issues, and facts, as presented by scientists, and they engage in alarmist language, and extremist hyperbole.

Well duhh, it is the media, that is what they do, and not on this issue alone, they do it on all issues, they talk stuff up,.
They are to objective information sharing, what real estate agents are to accurate property descriptions.

So go and shoot the messenger, but for goodness sake stop lying about the message.

Hmmm, lets see is there any form of refutation here...
Nope.
Just name-calling and out of hand dismissal via shooting the messenger.


Oh and Mozz do at least read what the man says b4 given yet another pointless diatribe.