Dear SPQR,

Not uncanny at all mate.

I have outed both of you for fraudulently posting garbage on this forum. It is a common form of defense from your side to accuse your accuser of the same crime you have been exposed for.

Leo was found out by claiming that “There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.” when the study he quoted showed no such thing.

Banjo got found out posting a picture of a woman apparently holding a sign that said “Behead those who claim Islam is violent”. It was photoshopped nonsense. You defended him by claiming I couldn't “vouch for the whole of London” basically saying there may well have been a burka clad women somewhere in London holding a sign that said “Behead those who claim Islam is violent”.

It was sheer and utter bollocks of course but you persisted in propagating the fraud.

So was there an apology from any of you? No because you think the best form of defense is attack. Having your fraud outed you then claim those exposing you are themselves fraudulent. Truly despicable.

If you had any regard for common ethical behaviour you should have apologised. Instead you accuse others of the crime you have been outed over. That sir is unethical, bereft of common decency, and a sad reflection on you as a person.

You have my pity.

Dear Leo Lane,

I don't often and paste entire scripts but felt it appropriate. Here is an open letter by the researchers of the study you and the other scurrilous fraud Heartland's James Taylor have chosen to distort, misquote, hijack and abuse.

Statement by Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Paul Croft, Keith Seitter, and Anthony Leiserowitz:

James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change.  Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery.Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we can’t stop them.  Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor.

In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming.  To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise – climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science – and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise.

Cont...

Cont...

We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring).  Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.

End quote.

Fraud-backer!

Okay all fun aside this is pretty unpleasant rhetoric to be bandying around. If you want to continue to engage in it I will send it back with interest. You cracking on about 'fraud-backer' will elicit the same from me. But I really think it would be far less confrontational to dial it back a bit especially if you keep getting dacked all the time as seems to be your wont.

Up to you my friend.

A fairer analysis of the Meteorological Survey is by Judith Curry:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/

And Anthony Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Many AGW scientists either don't know what they are talking about or don't like what their results show. The survey asked:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:
◾Yes: Mostly human
◾Yes: Equally human and natural
◾Yes: Mostly natural
◾Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
◾Yes: Don’t know cause
◾Don’t know if global warming is happening
◾Global warming is not happening

Just 52% of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48% either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the Primary cause.

You really re a joke, Steele. A bad joke, but, nevertheless, a joke.
You have a letter from Stenhouse, vilifying Taylor for his report on Stenhouse’s survey, based on material cobbled up by Stenhouse since Taylor made him aware of the implications of his own survey. That would be fraudulent under your rules, Steele, bearing in mind the basis of your ridiculous accusation against me. You thought you were joking when you called Stenhouse a fraud-backer, but you were completely accurate.
Taylor has some edifying observations on “ why Stenhouse conducted the survey in the first place. Most likely, the psychologist lives in an echo chamber of like-minded global warming alarmists and expected the survey to reveal a broad alarmist consensus. Now that Stenhouse doesn’t like the survey results, he trashes AMS meteorologists’ ability to hold informed opinions on global warming...no surprise given that his job is to spread global warming alarm. The website for the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication, under whose auspices he conducted the survey, states at the very top, “Climate change is the result of human actions and choices.”
tp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/12/05/global-warming-alarmist-trashes-his-own-poll-of-meteorologists-showing-no-climate-crisis/

Steele, your objection to “fraud backer” is strange. When you asserted support for AGW, you were asked for the science which supported it. You never supplied it, and I supplied science which shows that the human effect on climate is so insignificant as to be undetectable.

In spite of this, you continue to support AGW, while aware that it is fraudulent.
“Fraud-backer” is an accurate description of your position, so please clarify your objection, or direct us to any science which supports AGW.

In your delusional world you tell me”you keep getting dacked all the time” . In the real world, you have not laid a glove on me, and have simply made a fool of yourself in your pathetic efforts to defend your position.

Leo...hello again....so its all a conspiracy....or is it extended time to think?

Kat