Davies

Got it wrong again pal.I did follow up your first suggestion as representing your evidence, which is what I asked for.

Worked my way through the Heritage Foundation and then the LSE and the Grantham Research Institute and Nicholas Stern ..well all that doesnt auger well.. then hit on a Prof Geoffery Heal doing a Press Release under the LSE banner saying...

" Leading US Researcher says vested interests from the coal fuel company are active in the political debate".

He is really smart this bloke ...wouldnt be at all obvious would it ..noooo.... I need to be a fully fledged Professor to be able to say the bleeding obvious. Every bar fy from here to Broome would take that as a given.

If one is responsible for billions of dollars of shareholder funds of course they are.They would be derelict in their duty if they didnt.

Only out of touch publically funded academics would think it was other wise, or that such behaviour was out of court.

You people are truly unbelievable.

Geoff Davis “then you just kept on flaming me and anyone you disagree with.”

Maybe you could point out the “others” I “flamed”

because as I read back, I agreed with Candide and referred to no other poster .

“So apparently it’s OK for you and your side to flame, but not OK for me and my side to flame. If you don’t like it, stop doing”

Like I said, you can hardly claim any moral superiority, based on earlier and latest attempt to diminish my posts viz

“If asking you to stop flaming is asking you to be silent (which I’m not doing), then apparently you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute.”

That’s a common trick, you simultaneously pursue the very thing which you claim you do not want to do.

It might work with your students but I have no papers which need to be marked, so I regard your comment as somewhat bereft of the authority your posturing attempts to assume.

To matters of AGW and modeling

I have based part of my career on developing computer models.

I know the rules to apply

I know both the basics and the more refined techniques and

I know that bodgey data produces bodgey predictions (the GIGO principle)

I also know that any model which cannot reflect the events experienced historically, has no basis for even presuming that it can be applied to predict the future.

AGW is littered with more “acclaimed”, until found to be dud and doubtful, models (computer or otherwise) than almost any other activity.

The credibility of the “science of Global Warming" disappeared down the proverbial toilet some time ago.

On that basis, my assertion that the whole global warming theory is a collective scam and merely an exercise in

Socialism by Stealth

has more credence in justifying all the efforts to invoke international hysteria than any supposed "Global Warming" theory.

Like Lenin said “A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.”

For the insideous collectivists, “global warming” just represents their “revolutionary situation”

Lord M - I admire him. Refer to his U Tube address to St.Paul University in America. His letter to PM Rudd dtd 1.1.10, his examining the Inconvenient Truth movie, and the 35 errors in it, that he explains.
Maybe Al had been incorrectly advised but capitalized from it. And
if he and others are promoting a big fat lie with a hidden agenda
then in my opinion he is guilty of a criminal act and so are his advisers. Particularly the hidden in small print in the UN draft Climate change treaty regarding forming a global UN Government to control climate change responsibilities. One wonder's now that this climate change lie has far reaching and dangerous implications than meets the eye. And the lies being expressed to character assassinate
Lord M, are even worse in my mind, talk about shooting the messenger for telling the truth! And if people are found being paid to promote a lie that is criminal.

Good article Poirot – thank you. I do believe that western societies need to be ever-vigilant. Australian owned or based miners alone have a disgraceful record overseas and have desecrated the livelihoods and trashed the environment of many indigenous groups around the planet – South Africa, Niger Delta, Philippines, Chile, Papua , Indonesia, Madagascar, Amazon, Chile, Rumania, DRC etc etc. It appears that miners delight in doing business with governments whose only regulatory process is the bullet.

Nevertheless, I’m confident that Viscount Monckley will, out of decency, raise these issues of crimes against humanity with our mining industry during his visit.

After reflecting on Viscount Monckton’s article, I got to thinking that when a journalist claims to be an expert on climate change, society is entitled to have evidence supporting those claims before they form an educated opinion. After all if you had your appendix removed by Dr Sawbones and then discovered during recovery that he was in fact a travelling salesman, you would be concerned about your innings.

1. Viscount – Why did you blame Jackie Kennedy for deaths from malaria in the third world and state last October that: “40 million people, nearly all of them children, died of malaria solely and simply because DDT had been banned for no good scientific reason or environmental reason whatsoever” when DDT was never banned in third world countries?

http://www.alien-earth.org/forum/message.php?message=57654&showdate=11/25/09

2. Why do your letterheads contain the title “Lord” when you are not?

3. The blog, Cosmic Variance is a group blog by people who advise that they are all physicists and astrophysicists. Have you responded to their allegations?:

“He (Viscount Monckley) goes on to make outrageous and unsupported claims about global warming, selectively quoting (and sometimes misquoting) experts in the field and taking on the actual science in a way that is just plain embarrassing. He makes historical claims (like there are reliable reports from sailors that there was little or no arctic ice six hundred years ago) and does a thoroughly dishonest job of representing James Hansen’s claims.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/11/14/the-perils-of-poor-science-journalism/

contd.......

Contd......

4. Why did you claim in your SPPI article “The Unwisdom of Solomon: Bad logic, bad science, and bad policies” that $40 billion had been spent on climate research in 2008 in the US when the climate change research budget is less than $2 billion, and that includes the NASA space-based observing system hardware?

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/viscount_monckton_denialist_dujour/

5. Al Gore gained recognition because of his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and for alerting nations to the potential ramifications of climate change. A cursory glance of his blog indicates that, while he quotes reputable scientists, he does not publish scientific papers, nor does he speak in scientific lingo but rather writes in general terms, bringing the reader up to date on political and climate change progress (or regress!)

Since he is a lawyer by profession and does not pretend otherwise, I have respect for his integrity. You are a journalist, therefore, shouldn't you advise how you manage to arrive at the conclusions in the scientific papers you publish when you lack the necessary qualifications?

6. You claim that “there has been no warming for fifteen years.” How have you arrived at this conclusion?

7. You are quoted as stating: …“Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions….If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition ..... " Please substantiate this claim and explain why you call Obama "Osamabamarama" and do you have any objections to the people who call you "Marty Feldman?"

8. For the sake of transparency, could you advise who is sponsoring your world-wide trips to speak on climate change?

I trust you will let us know of the response from our mining industry and respond also to my questions, prior to leaving the country?

I keep asking this question without getting a satisfying answer? The Prime Minister said the last ten years have been the hottest but others have said we are now cooling. What? How and who does this?
Surely this should be a "Fact"? I am stumped that this nub of the argument is a debating point.
The temperature in Melbourne right now is an ascertainable fact. I have read the New Zealander's changed their data on temperature to help the, what is it again, global warming, AGW or climate change? You tell me!