Runner - In AGW doublespeak cold snaps are just "weather" and hot periods are not weather. They are evidence of "global warming". Cold weather is apparently not evidence of anything and should just be ignored. They are currently busy concocting more doublespeak in an attempt explain away the current 30+ yr lows in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm sure Europeans are really keen to pay bigger taxes to their governments for their imaginary carbon related global warming sins while people are dying from the cold, and in the UK, elderly pensioners burn books to keep warm.

Funny thing is that many Alarmists believe climate modellers' predictions of 20 yrs in advance though none were able to predict the European cold snap six months in advance.

OK, I'll admit that my comparison of some people to Alf Garnett was over the line. I have tried to be scrupulous in the past, in contrast to many here, and I slipped that time. I apologise.

For those who questioned the opening sentence "This article hits a new low in viciously emotive language, irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria, and parades some of the usual egregious myths about the science", that is, in my opinion, a reasonable description of the article.

Regarding flaming, this article is one of the worst examples of flaming I've seen in a while. I've seen such things as comments, especially on OLO, but not as an article on an 'edited' site.

So why was the article posted? As some have noted, it is clearly substandard in its emotive language and quite arguably substandard in the connections it fails to establish between its examples (poverty, biofuels, land clearing) and advocacy of the global warming threat.

Oh and I think this comment relates to this thread, not to a general discussion of flaming.

Candide “Col Rouge, for example,….. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, broad or narrow, but I think OLO should, belatedly, put its foot down in relation to downright rudeness in the Forum.”

Yes, I so agree!

Because that was my original point regarding the first comment posted by

Geoff Davies, re “This article hits a new low in viciously emotive language, irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria, and parades some of the usual egregious myths about the science. The local Alf Garnett fan club will love it of course, the ones who would agree with old Alf that Jesus was an Englishman”

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The collective ranks of AGW zealots have no greater right to consider those of us who see AGW as a scam of the first order, “downright rude”,

than I do to consider expressions by those who adjoin my views to those of “Alf Garnett” as “downright rude” also.

Anyway since we are debating the fact that AGW is a complete and total deception,

Being used to harness the “useful idiots” (Lenin’s description) of the “science and environmental studies” community and designed by the left wing entryists (following the collapse of communism /USSR and the transition of China from a communist state to a quasi-capitalist state) to inflict their “collectivism” upon the rest of us,

I add the following to the debate

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/11/the-new-road-to-serfdom

it is called here “the new road to serfdom”…

reducing us to “chattels of the state”

but does also reference the following quote

“The Rudd regime’s climate change policies are a local instance of a world-wide campaign to achieve a highly centralized form of global socialism by stealth, using climate change panic as a stalking horse.”

Krudd & Co were hell bent on impose ETS upon us, without a mandate and his suggestions were ignored in Copenhagen…

I wonder why no one else was as gung-ho about Krudd’s “Socialism by Stealth”?

I trust Monckton will “maintain the high volume” on this dispicable socialist deceit

I also think that this is an idotic and fact-devoid article, but it maintains the standard of Monckton's other offerings elsewhere.

Monckton lacks any credibility on AGW, except amongst the denialist contingent who will seemingly accept any tendentious twaddle that seeks to counter the vast weight of scientific evidence for AGW. Numerous critiques by actual scientists of Monckton's prolific offerings can be found at

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/

Geoff Davies: << Regarding flaming, this article is one of the worst examples of flaming I've seen in a while. I've seen such things as comments, especially on OLO, but not as an article on an 'edited' site. >>

That's exactly the point I made to Graham Young in response to his email informing me that my previous comment in this thread had been deleted. Indeed, my words were "I’d have described Monckton’s entire silly article as a flame".

I think that the article is deliberately offensive trash, designed specifically to elicit strong responses from those who accept the overwhelming evidence for AGW.

When I have had articles on OLO I have been called all sorts of things. No I do not enjoy that, but no, I do not fall over in a heap and weep about it. I assume always that if I get into the kitchen I had better be able to stand the heat. Frankly the nastier the attack the more superior I feel!

Many of the comments on this article have been of low standard and aggressive. However that is what has been going on re AGW for a year or more (and not just on OLO, pollies have been good at the rudeness too).

It is interesting to just go back a week or so and look at the good comments re Thorium reactors to see how feeble the discussion always is re AGW. I suspect that the pro AGW people had it so easy for so long that when contrary approaches are given they react in a more violent than is usual.

Incidentally I am sceptical re AGW and regard this article as a poor effort in many ways - I would rather it had not been posted because I think it could do more harm than good.. However I support absolutely the right of OLO to publish it because the author is well known on the issue.

eyejaw, that's very perceptive actually "I suspect that the pro AGW people had it so easy for so long that when contrary approaches are given they react in a more violent than is usual."

I do agree that previously to the whole CRU thing that AGW believers had a holier than thou, lofty and sneering view of skeptics and it seems since the outing of data, that their patience and comfort has been seriously challenged.

Skepticism was dismissed as quaint, irrational and irrelevant, now they sense it actually does matter and that there are a lot around of skeptics around. In their 'fightback" some have even tried to requalify what a skeptic is, in the search for more biting insults.

The realisation that people are not just willing believers when the old mantra, "peer reviewed!" is thrown up has certainly rattled many.

People are questioning what was thought to be decided, and anyone who delivers that message gets pretty severely dealt with.

We have the good Lord (Monckton) to thank of course (sorry, it was just begging to be used)