Give it up, Steven, you will not make it to Nigel Calder’s Hall of Shame. You are not even a peripheral player.

Calder outlines the campaign of the alarmists:

“There is no mention that the Danish team in Copenhagen, beat CLOUD to the first results obtained using a particle beam to ionize the air in the experimental chamber

What will historians of science make of this breach of scientific etiquette? That Kirkby was cross because Svensmark, losing patience with the long delay in getting approval and funding for CLOUD, took matters into his own hands? Or because Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies? Or was Kirkby simply doing his best (despite the results) to obey his Director General by slighting all things Danish?

The High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.

In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and applying the same mechanism to the 20th century warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

Their strategy was to starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996.

Long delays of CLOUD, the experiment to explore the microchemical mechanism of the Svensmark effect became the chief excuse for deferring any re-evaluation of the Sun’s role in climate change”

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

Game over, Steven.

http://tinyurl.com/Leo-Lane

leo lane + climate = troll

Amicus a.k.a. rpg

Missing in action?

Qanda it looks like a prima facie case of sock-puppetry, I'll investigate.

Just as I investigated your claim to be a successful trader in GDY. Posters might wonder why I am interested in your personal claims - an interest that you characterise as ad hominem. It is because you hold yourself out as an expert and belittle others on that basis. But more often than not you aren't an expert at all. If you advance yourself as an argument, expect to be rebutted.

Here's what you said about your portfolio in GDY in March 2010:

"On a personal note (seeing you think I “have done a bit of dough”) ... I bought 2 blocks of GDY in mid ’06 for about 70 cents per share. The 1st block I gifted between my children, the 2nd block ‘willed’ and divided amongst their children (my grandchildren not yet born) turning 21.

As it turned out, one of kids wanted to ‘cash in’ for a substantive house deposit and keep it with the bank for about a year - fortuitous or just astute, you tell me. Anyway, they did and they made a motzza - traded at about $2 per share in ’07 ... almost 300% profit in just over 1 year. Were they to know about the casing collapse last year? No, they were lucky ... but we were aware of the GFC on the horizon - were you?

Nevertheless, I originally bought the shares as a long term ‘blue chip’ investment, primarily for my grandchildren – stipulated in my will not to be traded for at least another 30 years. Time to double up? You betcha!" (cont...)

cont...

In March 2010 GDY were around 60 cents. They're 20 cents now. You didn't sell on a high according to your own account of your share portfolio at a time when the price was a lot higher than it is now. You've changed your story now that the share fall exposes your boasting for what it is.

What you seem to be doing is curve fitting your preferred reality to fit the past. Bad luck for you that you left a trail of evidence as to what actually happened in the past, even if, as I suspect, that was also an exercise in fitting your story to accord with the facts.

Anyone who is interested can see a graph of the share price at http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=ASX:GDY. The company listed in September 2002 and shares originally traded at 40 cents.

Your story is a bit like the way they run those climate models, so it's a good lesson in how those sorts of exercises work.

And on, and on, anon, anon it goes. Anonymity sure ensures the debate will drag on. When can we change the rules to slay the drag-on factor? Let everyone declare who they are and what are their vested interests. Let the games begin anew without the masks of anonymity.