225 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. Yup, that’s the paper… I particularly enoyed the third experiment where all the kids who actually bought the “green” products seemed to feel justified in not only cheating to get more money, but also actually “five finger discounted” themselves to a little MORE cash out of the envelope.

    While this was just a small psych paper with a few volunteers, and really doesn’t PROOVE anything… an interesting line can be drawn from the actions of the participants and the real life actions of those involved in Climategate where their whole identity and LIFE is wound up in “Saving the World”, and “Protecting the Planet.”

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ——–===> If identifying yourself and acting with an “altruistic” ethical creed like environmentalism gives a person license to bend/break the little “rules of society”… does devoting your entire life to “Saving the World from Ecological catastophe” give a person license to break the big “rules of society?”

    Interesting question/concept.


  2. I am considering running a thought experiment (a la Smiths) on the concept stated above, based on the conclusions of the above paper.

    You guys don’t think that if I looked into it… that, I mean if a really did a hard search, I’d find some AGW figureheads or prominent AGW Scientists that were STUPID enough to actually go on record and basically say that “the ends justify the means”, do you?

    I mean come on, who would be dumb enough to do THAT, right?! Right?

    I dunno…


  3. @Doc_Navy
    Unfortunately, the Telegraph lies. Been caught out a number of times, and has near zero credibility. It’s about as credible as Fox News.

    Journalistic standards, worldwide, have sunk to an all time low, which has been looked at here:

    The Australian:
    56% of their news is PR driven.
    19.26% of stories consisted of “straight public relations or promotion with no significant extra journalism work”.

  4. Of course, this paper doesn’t make AGW any less true. Or AGW deniers any less delusional or nuts. The paper simply suggests that feeling one is morally superior is not a good thing. The exception, of course, is when that morally superior person is yourself. This last proviso is one we all know.

  5. Never said it does.

    And here you are with that ugly word “Deniers”. I thought there was a discussion policy here.

    Here’s a radical question (since YOU brought it up):

    What *WOULD* prove that AGW might, you know… possibly be, ummm “overstated”?

    (Example: “If the majority of GCM’s consistently failed to accurately project observed climate over a period of 20 years then, as GCM’s are the keystone of Catastrophic AGW, we can confidently conclude that our current hypothosis is falsified.”

    Or maybe:

    “If it ever came to light that there was a systemic problem in the gathering and interpretation of raw scientific data, including poor siting, statistically impossible “adjustments”, evidence of wide spread data tampering by gatekeepers, bad statistical technique, unethical research practices, other natural factors that could induce similar results, and the use of non-scientific/non-peer reviewed conclusions in the scientific literature… this would be enough evidence that our hypothosis, while possibly correct, suffers from insufficient data to be supportable at this time rrquiring significant re-work”

    You know.. something along those lines…


  6. Well the first is irrelevant even if it were true. The second simply nonsense. No such thing came to light. Just another example of how delusional the denialists are. I suppose you think ‘tricks’ and ‘hide the decline’ mean something other than what they did mean. Quick, check under your bed, there may be a Red.

  7. Oh my God! Not a read but a Green. And what is this? He’s clutching a Nobel prize?

  8. @freelander

    Actually, I know EXACTLY what they mean and IMHO the reality is worse than the mistaken myth. Do YOU know what it meant?

    Also, I see you play the same “Well, you may be right, but it’s irrelevant” game that a large portion of “true believers” play.

    As to the second example… it was an example, and you never answered the question. Speaking of “delusional”, are you seriously trying to say with a straight face that there are NO siting issues with the GHCN or the USHCN? Really?
    And umm, there have NEVER been found to be “adjustments” to temperature records that are statistically impossible? (Example: GISS adjusted temperature data set contains so many manual adjustments that are “down” pre-1970 and “up” post-1970 that it is a statistical impossibility. Proven in 2007 and 2008.)

    I’m sure you heard about the “Hockey Stick” so I don’t need to go into THAT issue of thrice debunked science…

    Then there’s the… what, couple of DOZEN citations in the IPCC 4th that, after a little scrutiny, turned out to be activist propaganda or non-peer reviewed papers (isn’t that what all the “true believers” keep squawking about when it come to skeptical papers?) or even just some guy talking about an issue over the phone with another guy 10 years ago and then ~BOOM~ it’s an official citiation in the 4th AR… you never heard about that? Seriously?

    You know.. there’s this saying I heard when I was a kid, and I think it realy pertains to people who use the word “Denier” when it comes to Climate Change, it goes like this:

    “Whenever you point your finger at someone else, remember, there are three more pointing right back at you.”

    Think about it.


  9. I think you must be suffering from “Reefer Madness”. See I told everyone how dangerous it was.

  10. @ Freelander

    Hahah! you’re a funny guy. Really.

    But umm, humor aside… that would be 5 (easy) questions you’ve sidestepped rather than answer. My guess is that you know I’m right, and don’t want to have to admit it after already getting your *** handed back to you on the WWII thing. ;~{ Sorry.

    Actually come to think about it… I’d be willing to bet that if I go back to the beginning of this thread and count the number of point, rebuttal, counter points here, your “side” (if that’s really what we’ve come to) is seriously… shall I say it? In the red.


  11. I am sorry ‘Doc’ ,but ‘discussing’ AGW, its not really a serious subject. Its a bit like discussing the shape of the earth with a flat earther; only done for entertainment.

  12. @ Freelander

    According to Einstein… all space is “flat” in a gravimetric sense, but you’re a smart fella; you prolly already knew that.

    1. You still suck at baiting…
    2. You still sidestepped the questions.

    It is really getting hard for you to maintain a position of educational superiority, what with all the advoidence and ad hom.

    Makes me wonder if your REALLY know as much as you allude to.


  13. “Oh. I thought I won that debate on WWII?”

    “Deniers”… pointing… three fingers.


  14. AGW deniers, delusionists or whatever, have had plenty of evidence with which to come to the right conclusion. Their beliefs are not adequately explained by a lack of knowledge or even by a lack of intellect (although, the latter does not help). Probably, their situation is best explained by the ‘Sarah Palin effect’ (named after that well-known Tina Fey impersonator), also known as the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’ as outlined in their famous paper: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessment”.

  15. @Doc_Navy
    “If it ever came to light that there was a systemic problem in the gathering and interpretation of raw scientific data, including poor siting,…
    Utterly debunked and trashed not only by Menne et al (2009), but also by Tamino, which has been verified through replication by others, some of whom are on the ‘sceptical’ side of the fence.

    The irony is that the so-called poor siting actually cooled the overall temps, not increase them. GCM projections are also being verified more and more by real world observations.

    As for Prof. Jones, expecting him to photocopy over half a million weather station reports and ship a 60 metre high parcel to Canada, and to everyone else who thinks they’re entitled, is too much to take seriously.

    Repetition is not replication. The HADCRUT results match the other temerature data. No problems there.

  16. This may amaze and astound some people, but in physical sciences like, er, physics, chemistry, experimental biology (cells and DNA and other gloopy things) and the like, when a scientific article makes a new claim based upon experimental and observational data, other scientists who find it sufficiently curious may attempt to reproduce the results. Reproducing the results generally means doing the experiment themselves, so that they can tinker around with the parameters and convince themselves that the original results stand – meaning that they got the same results to within the appropriate error bars, or some other appropriate criteria given the original study – or they basically find that they cannot reproduce the results; usually the second case turns up new factors to consider, less often it determines an error in the original analysis, or even that the scientists attempting the reproduction have made errors themselves.
    Real scenarios may and do run somewhat differently to my simplified account, but the main point is that reproduction by an independent group is a fairly standard meaning of “reproduce the results”. If another group cannot reproduce the results then at the very least it may mean that the original article isn’t sufficiently clear, and warrants follow up in the scientific literature. Since real lab experiments or statistical and mathematical analysis of observational data are complicated, independent reproduction of the results may take time, and then publication may add a further delay. One important benefit of reproducing a study’s results in this way is that it gives support to the robustness of the results (which isn’t the same as insisting that each and every number is identical between the original study and the reproducing study).
    It is quite common for scientists to use “replicate” as a synonym for “reproduce”, which further muddies the waters.
    Finally, in the case where reproduction has failed in spite of the best efforts of several groups, the question of either incompetence or deliberate fraud may arise, resulting in an enquiry into the precise protocol(s) used, and in this situation a group may be set up to scrutinise any workbooks, intermediate data and so on. In some cases an assigned team may try to replicate the experiment(s) with the original scientists – in this case the idea is to see exactly what the original scientists did, with a view to discovery of either missing steps, misunderstanding, incompetence, or fraud.
    Reproduce first, and if that is impossible, and only then, start looking at replication (which typically is done through an official channel). Replication attempts by people who haven’t even taken the time to do a decent attempt at reproduction – Tamino demonstrated quite clearly that reproduction is straightforward for a statistically literate person, if time-consuming – has simply resulted in a damn-awful waste of everybody’s time. As J Bowers said:

    Repetition is not replication.


  17. Oh dear. Sometimes I feel that historians are worse done by than climate scientists.

    December 1941 was after the German retreat before Moscow, after the effective collapse of Italy in North Africa, after the passage of the Lend-Lease Act in May 1941 and the US declaration of the Western Hemisphere Neutrality Zone (in which US naval ships were authorised to defend UK-bound convoys against German submarines, and to attack the latter if found), after UK-US staff talks had agreed a policy of defeating Germany first. It was also after the defeat of the Luftwaffe against Britain. So the Axis was not exactly triumphant.

    Gallop polls after 1940 consistently found majority US opinion against a declaration of war against Germany, but (explicitly) even larger support for aiding Britain even if this meant war with Germany.

    The German declaration of war was pre-emptive – Hitler knew that the US would come in, and preferred to get his retaliation in first. Also he was committed to war against the US with Japan – and the US was across these negotiations. Both sides knew war was inevitable soon.

    Finally, one factor that weighed with the Japanese was that the Australian Army was much more heavily equipped than the Japanese. They were rightly wary (after their experience with the Red Army in 1938) of committing their troops against fully-equipped opponents in open terrain.

    Read Waldo Heinrich, Adam Tooze, Caspar Weinberg, Rchard Overy.

  18. in so far as they have beliefs, they belong to the 7th century – fran

    it is misleading to map western concepts onto this region – fran

    it does seem to me that there is a tension between these statements fran

  19. “Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense…. Indeed, it is a part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
    While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.
    – General McArthur

    A Republic may put its armor on and off. War is an interlude.
    When war comes it is a civilian business, conducted under the advice of military experts.
    Both in peace and war military experts are excluded from civilian decisions.
    But with Empire it is different; Empire must wear its armor.
    Its life is in the hands of the General Staff and war is supremely a military business, requiring of the civilian only acquiescence, exertion and loyalty.

    – Garet Garrett

    i will not try and describe the problems i see with the American state as it now exists,
    many eloquent Americans have done a good job of that and a long time ago.
    If you want to justify these things you and your nation are involved in you go for it.
    My comment is that your country is not what you think it is.
    If you haven’t read Garet Garrett on the American Empire i’d recommend it,
    though he comes from a quite different political viewpoint than i, i think he documents the loss of the original light on the hill very well

  20. @smiths

    it does seem to me that there is a tension between these statements fran

    Perhaps you can specify the “tension”?

  21. oh come on fran,
    you say that their beliefs belong to the seventh century and go on to say that we shouldnt map western concepts onto the region,
    your first statement is made in the context of western ‘progress’ since the seventh century – which of course was mostly due to the arab resurrection of the greeks and their own significant developments during their golden era – which surely is mapping western conpts onto the region.
    Afghanistan has been a pawn in the great game for more than two hundred years.
    What kind of political structure do you expect to have emerged locally in the constantly shifting situation.
    Jeez, the same guys the yanks sold arms to thirty years ago they are killing now, and remember, the Taliban were fine when Karzai worked for UNOCOL and the pipleine looked good to go.
    Would you describe Australian Aborigines in the same terms, or would you consider that to be ignorant and offensive? I would.

  22. @smiths

    When I say one should not map western concepts onto the region, I’m claiming that the western view of a modernising population acquiring a sense of national community simply doesn’t apply in Afghanistan. That’s why the notion of “resisting foreign invaders” is misleading. “Foreign” can mean “anyone not from my clan or village” or who talks one of the multiplicity of languages there. It cuts across even the Pashtun, Tajik and Hazara identities. It’s name not withstanding Afghanistan is not now nor ever was a country in any sense we would understand it, which is why having a project of a “stable democratic Afghanistan” is fanciful on any meaningful timeline. It can’t and won’t happen no matter how many western troops stay there, how humane and honest and professional they are or for how long.

    I read the other day that some of the first new police recruits had just acquired the literacy needed to recognise a car number plate. If this is the cream of the crop, and as widely reported, basic literacy amongst men is the wrong side of 40% and women lower still, and the life expectancy in the jurisdiction around 45, one might well wonder what a bona fide act of sovereignty could look like. So forget that.

    Worse still, the resources within the region fall well short of supporting the 30 million or so in anything like dignified circumstances. So neither the political nor the material basis for a country exists.

    A far more rational policy would be to treat the population as displaced persons and to offer them assisted passage and integration support into countries willing to take a quota. Through MDG-style programs, provision could be made to integrate them into countries with infrastructure better suited to assisting them into the 21st century. This would begin dissolution of clan and kin and theocratic control and allow the next generation a shot at a reasonable life. Remittance payments and international aid could support those who wanted for some reason to stay. At about 2 million people concentrated in a few urban centres with a suitable hinterland, the carrying capacity might well be about right and as I said, with a poppies for peace program we might actually see some progress in the region. The criminal elements, deprived of their pool of victims, would soon fracture and start squabbling amongst themselves, rendering the busienss of putting the arm on them a lot easier.

    As to Aborigines, I’m not taking the bait. There’s simply no comparison.

  23. i didnt make the comparison as some kind of trap fran, i probably should have left it out,
    my point was that people who would be loathe to make judgmental comments about some cultures seem freer to make them about others, anyway,
    i agree with everything you have written on Afghanistan by the way
    did you know the Taliban offered Bin Laden to the Americans in return for not continuing with the attack

  24. @smiths

    my point was that people who would be loathe to make judgmental comments about some cultures seem freer to make them about others, anyway,

    Anyone is free to say anything they like about the contributions culture make to human progress. We call that politics.

    Clearly some cultural arrangements are not conducive to human wellbeing.

    I did know that the Taliban offered this arrangement. The Taliban was the instrument of the ISI which was allied with the US government via Mushharraf. This didn’t suit the Americans though as they were not in favour of the ICJ and wanted a free hand to get revenge. The ISI/Mushharraff didn’t want a regime sympathetic to India, which they figured the Americans would impose, so they tried to knowk off Karzai and the NA figures working with the US and spirited Bin Laden out of the place in December 2001, ironically, if that is the right word, under the noses of the CIA.

    It’s not clear that the CIA was unhappy about this, as not catching Bin Laden was far more useful to the US policy agenda at that time. Having him on the loose allowed the US a blank cheque they couldn’t have got if they’d grabbed him officially. Also, if Bin Laden had started blabbing in open court, that would have been embarrassing because he’d have mentioned his past alliances.

  25. Hat tip to Deltoid on this one, but this is a fabulous resource on the latest trends in climate delusionism:

    Flogging the scientists

    This one takes on the “no warming from 1995” and “sea level rise cancelled” memes.

    More generally if you google “Climate Denial crock of the week” and look for Peter Sinclair, you will get the youtube short videos.

  26. hot damn this looks like fun, how about it Terje?

    19 April 2010: Bring Your Sidearms and Longarms To The Banks of the Potomac
    As it stands now, this (see link) is how I plan on attending the Restore the Constitution rally on 4-19 at Ft. Hunt and Gravelly Parks.
    Pistol loaded, openly carried. Rifle unloaded, slung to rear. Bandoleer of magazines containing ammo. All in accordance with rules (at link). Please note that guidelines are subject to final coordination with the Department of the Interior
    NB. Anyone carrying their pistol openly or concealed cannot have in it a magazine capable of holding over 20 rounds and cannot have a pistol designed to accept a silencer or suppressor.

    send the nutters your support people

  27. @Donald Oats

    Well said.
    Science is not like religion. Science doesn’t need to rely on the re-examination of some sacred texts to progress. (And I doubt Jones would claim that any of his papers ought to be regarded as ‘sacred’.) While some rigor and maybe audits might be useful as part of the process to make sure studies have been done properly, rubbish studies are ultimately found out when others are not able to replicate the results. So it was with claims about ‘cold fusion’ and so it has been in many other cases. The ignorance and mendacity of those in the delusionist camp is incredible.

  28. apologies if this has already been posted

    It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted …
    “There is increasing concern,” declared epidemiologist John Ioannidis in a highly cited 2005 paper in PLoS Medicine, “that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”

  29. Dear Mr Quigglin
    You tradduced Mr McIntyre with weasel words on another post. The sort of nasty visciousness that the self named climate scientists operate as normal and as revealed by the leaked emails. Only a clown or deciever would think agw was not made up after reading the emails.
    Its over the liars lost we won.

  30. @Stacey

    Wrong Stacey. McIntyre is reckless and unscrupulous and deserved to be called on it. Quiggin had his number. Only a fool would claim the stolen emails said anything of substance about the basic science.

  31. @Stacey
    Sorry Stacey – you are yet another person who has read two websites you like and are convinced you know more than the worlds climate scientists.

    Eject button?

  32. @Stacey
    Oh and the “dear Mr Quigglin” isnt going to win you any points for superior knowledge here, especially when you cant even spell Professor Quiggin’s name correctly.

  33. @Alice

    Stacey, another victim of the ‘Sarah Palin effect’ or is it the Dunning-Kruger effect? If one is truly ignorant it is amazing the stupid things you can say without any fear of embarrassment. It must be wonderful to be so stupid and ignorant you never know that you have embarrassed yourself. Ignorance is like a magical ring of confidence. Terge has given JQ a new following. Pity they are all AGW deniers.

  34. @Freelander
    Terje (the worm) did that on purpose Freelander.

    I know JQ likes to have reasoned dissenting views but Terje is more trouble than he is worth. Terje pretends to be so reasonable….and is nothing of the sort and that smile his icon is entirely misleading….. sickening actually – he is here entirely as a political animal who sees JQ as “the enemy”.

  35. Alice

    I don’t know Terje and probably disagree with 90% of what he says however I don’t think he necessarily sees JQ as the enemy, I just think he probably likes commenting here because he enjoys arguing with people of different views. I post comments at Catallaxy for much the same reason.

    Dissenting views in my opinion add to the richness of discussion. By this I mean people who hold reasonable opposing views and not those AGW deniers who have infested this site recently.

  36. My apologies for spelling the Professor’s name incorrectly. Maybe he will apologies for a total distortion of the truth and misrepresentation of the emails, here’s one worth reading. It’s as if they were caught with their hands in the till and squeal “What till”

    Don’t you just love this extract:-

    “No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.”

    Not content with fiddling the data they even fiddle the number of scientists who support the fiddled data?

    From: Joseph Alcamo
    To: m.hulme Rob.Swart
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: alcamo

    Mike, Rob,

    Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions —

    Distribution for Endorsements —
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those

    Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
    1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
    a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
    that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
    2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
    afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
    time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
    about it.
    3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
    it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
    the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
    bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
    diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
    very different directions.

    Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
    November at the latest.

    Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
    with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
    willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

    Best wishes,

    Joe Alcamo


    Sticks and stones


  37. Congratulations, Stacey, you have just placed stolen private material on someone else’s blog. *You* owe Mr Quiggin an apology for that.

  38. sdfc :Alice
    I don’t know Terje and probably disagree with 90% of what he says however I don’t think he necessarily sees JQ as the enemy, I just think he probably likes commenting here because he enjoys arguing with people of different views. I post comments at Catallaxy for much the same reason.
    Dissenting views in my opinion add to the richness of discussion. By this I mean people who hold reasonable opposing views and not those AGW deniers who have infested this site recently.

    That is pretty spot on.

  39. 19 April 2010: Bring Your Sidearms and Longarms To The Banks of the Potomac

    Smiths – I think such a march is a good idea. The reason people are choosing to march with their firearms is because they feel like their right to own firearms is under threat. This isn’t that different to the origins of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival in Sydney. Gays and lesbians were being persecurted by authorities and large sections of society were fearful of homosexuality so they held a parade to showcase homosexuality and in the process create familiarity and whittle down peoples fearfulness. On the whole it worked. If we had an annual parade of lawful firearm owners through Sydney I suspect that over time it would also whittle down peoples phobias.

  40. Sorry I haven’t had much time to reply. I teach classes and have one going right now. (waiting for Freelander’s inevitable ad hom about my “instructional skills” or some such)

    Some interesting points have been brought up which I will address. Real fast though:

    Peter T:
    Your assertion seem s to be that in 1941 the AMerican public was “raring to go” when it comes to WWII. Considering that even AFTER pearl Harbor there was a large portion of the US population that felt that WWII was still a “European Conflict” and were pushing for the US to focus on Japan, I find your assertion a little on the weak side. Mebbe I am misinterpreting what you are saying though. I will definately look into your reccomended authors. In return I would recommend :

    The Reluctant Belligerent: American Entry Into World War II by Robert A. Divine

    It’s basically a lefty look at how America made everything worse in WWII by holding out. (So you and Smiths will prolly LOVE IT)

    J Bowers: I suspect you don’t hang around WUWT very often. Watt’s (you know, guy guy who actually did the siting study and wrote the preliminary paper) has a rebuttal to Menne et al *2010* (if you’re gonna cite something that supposedly trashes one of my points, might want to cite it correctly.)
    It can be found here:

    So, your paper that utterly debunks Watts has been in turn utterly debunked.


    Stacey doesn’t owe anyone anything as:
    1. Climategate emails are NOT covered under the Privacy Laws in the UK
    2. They have been in the public view for months.
    3. Please show me the evidence that these emails were “stolen” vice leaked by an insider.

    You owe Stacey an apology.


  41. @Stacey
    Stacey – political troll says
    “Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.”

    The cause Tracey? What is the cause? Cause more harm? You better get those email links pounding away to disseminate the “great big global scientific conspiracy” that your furtive gatherings of like minded souls thinks exists.

    You have a “cause” as misguided and paltry as it is, but the sheer weight of collective human intelligence is against you and time is not on your side.

    I suppose it keeps you busy but Im not sure that its productive effort.

  42. Trick or Cheat

    Are you in wonderland? I never said there was a conspiracy so lay of the Straw Man argument?
    As I said before sticks and stones, I am not a troll.

    You said “but the sheer weight of collective human intelligence is against you and time is not on your side.” You clearly are in denial and you have my sympathy, it must be difficult when your religious belief in Climate Change nee Global warming has been totally shown to be a fraud. But hey it is still right to protect the environment so stay with that.

    Stolen emails? Whatever are you talking about, these emails are in the public domain and why are you not concerned with the contents of them. Can you not bring yourself to read them?

    There is global warming and it would appear to be all man made up, so stop throwing out insults and accept that the fraud has been exposed and that’s without the Glaciers, Hurricanes, Amazon Rainforest, African Food production, Professor Hansens dodgy predictions and Al Gores 7metres rise in sea level.

    Stop wasting money on punching at the shadows of dangerous global warming and use the money instead to provide clean drinking water to millions around the world.

    Finally Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick was vindicated by Wegman et al who demonstrated in his report the cohort that exists in so called climate science and which was confirmed by the leaked emails.

  43. @Neil

    Sorry forgot to add they are not private emails they are public property as the perpertrators are public servants.

  44. I don’t think they are public domain simply because the authors are public servants. I do however regard them as public domain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s