Odo

No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

Ever since Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s US led debacle in Iraq, they have been trying to ‘white-wash’ it.

There was big money to be made by “you’re either with us or against us”.

It is no different now with the neo-conservative/neo-liberal climate change strategies.

There is big money in the ‘deny and delay’ camp – evidenced by vast sums of money spent in lobbying against effective climate change action - deliberately distorting and misinforming the public about the science (see Nick Lanelaw’s diatribes).

Leo Lane (Nick Lanelaw)

This is the latest piece about your pseudosceptic hero, Bob Carter;

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4911

It really is a show of faith that you leap on to the one and only piece Carter (stratigrapher and public speaker extraordinaire ) has lent his name to a paper published in a so called journal of (dis)repute, yet fail to acknowledge the 1000's of other robust papers by real climate scientists working in their field of expertise.

qanda - "no WMDs were found", so what?

I responded to your incorrect statement "I seem to recall Bush & Co bombed the crap out of Iraq with just 1% probability about WMD."

you were wrong .. so now you try another tack, give it up and just admit you were wrong. Your left wing liberal hatred leads you into the same BS as most of your type, making unsubstantiated statements.

When you are shown to be wrong, you change to something else, without an apology or admission, typical!

So now your tack, defending innocent scientists who know nothing about PR in a world of terrible skeptics is to try to wind up skeptical funding? (/sarcasm)

So you as a scientist are now publicly stating that you know where skeptical funding is coming from and that it is real and large?

This sounds a lot like a press release ... is it?

"There is big money in the ‘deny and delay’ camp – evidenced by vast sums of money spent in lobbying against effective climate change action - deliberately distorting and misinforming the public about the science (see Nick Lanelaw’s diatribes)."

Any proof of that big money?

Is it bigger than government spending?

Nick who?

That's it? In the face of governments spending billions on climate research. I can understand why the scientific community is vexed, you all didn't realise being political and all becoming activists was going to cost you something?

If you want to take sides, outside of science, there is a cost, and clearly you guys and gals don't like that and have woken up late that supporting a particular line was taking sides.

Time to pay mate, and you are, your scientific area is in disarray because you and your coleagues became political.

You did nothing about it and continue to ply the political line.

What was that about Bush and Cheney?

I also just saw your support post for Obama .. you dabble in politics at your own risk when you do it from your sceintific pedestal.

Vexatious remarks odo

Others might want to learn a bit more in “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”;

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/product-reviews/1553654854/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Real sceptics would read it.

just can't admit it can you qanda

Had a look at your book, I expected breathless propaganda dressed up .. and go it

"A good journalist practices professional skepticism, and does not fall for a PR man's line - or take a "freelance" job for a climate warming advocacy group.

Page three, author James Hoggan - a veteran PR man, in business to convince people of a given point of view - introduces readers to Richard Littlemore, a "veteran newspaper guy" who like "ink-stained skeptic" Ross Gelbspan, steers "a wide berth around anyone . passionately committed to a cause." Oh really.

Since 1996, the purported Skeptic, Littlemore, hasn't been a journalist at all. That year, he took a "freelance contract to write a public education package" on global warming for Canada's environmentalist David Suzuki Foundation - studied its material. Co-author Littlemore for 13 years has unashamedly conducted PR for an environmental organization working with Al Gore - committed to proving the global warming theory, irregardless of scientific evidence. Hardly objective.

That would be fine - if the authors stated at the outset that they're neither newsmen nor skeptics, but well-paid advocates and converts to a cause. But they pose as objective --- motivated solely by truth, light and science. These guys claim that only the big bad coal and oil industries are peddling a "giant lie" (their words)

and "The authors present as evidence popular news clips, U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and abstracts of climate change gurus.

finally and you MUST read this as it is exactly what this article is about, media management and scientists "Authors Hoggan and Littlemore probably still deny the manipulation of evidence that previously so convinced them. Since at least 1999, however, the CRU literally discarded and destroyed core raw climate data that raised serious questions and may have even disproved the global warming thesis.

Professional PR men know they must never lie, kid themselves --- nor join client causes as total believers. Otherwise when they do place stories, the news usually comes back to bite them in the end. "

qanda thanks for that, I had a great laugh, so that's the kind of reading the climate science community in Australia is promoting is it.

So as soon as you see something negative towards skeptics, it must be good huh?

Well done, you've just put your political cause back even further.

The AGW side of this rejoices in "debate" that poor innocent scientists just can't come to grips with - that's the kind of debate you like eh, slander and BS done up as "evidence" that skeptics are wrong or organised and there is evil about - but in reality it is more dodgy disinformation and BS from the usual suspects.

Moire tainted information from people pretending to be objective - like climate scientists isn't it, you all are trying now to look objective .. just the facts, oh my sides ache this is so funny.

Have a read of the reviews, obvously you didn't read them all - just the breathless cheering team you all stand with as believers - get past the obvious plants mate, do some "research" into who you're dealing with as reputable authors.

I can see why the peer review process has broken down in clmaite science.

You just leaped in full of confidance and "belief" hahaha You have made my day!