Poirot, you said above, "Why are you banging on about plagarisation?

99.9 percent of commenters here acknowledge or link to their sources."

Sorry, you are WRONG. There are some serial offenders. They know who they are. They read the left-wing blogs and cut-and-paste paragraphs without attempting to identify their posts as quotations, nor offering attribution. Do you need me to identify them publicly, or can you work it out for yourself?

Geoffrey Kelley

Here is a comment from "The Galileo Movement" on FB; ""Since Sir David’s exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food – and government has found itself a major part of the problem."

See https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Galileo-Movement/101728306584541

Poirot, how do you feel about this comment? It is not only opinionated but it is factual, is it not?

Geoffrey Kelley

Nice one Parrot,

When geoffreykelly points out "...they only quote, or read articles or papers that are from one side of the Climate Change argument...."

You parrot back that this is not so, then proceed to further justify your narrow reading sources by suggesting that you select only those who you judge are sufficiently qualified.

Then you add that the rest are just << the myriad hacks who have merely a smattering of knowledge and no formal training in the area>>.

Parrot, thats what he asserted you did, you filter your sources by your own criteria. So why didn’t you just say, yes geoffreykelly you are spot on instead of dressing up your confirmation of it as something else?

In the end you confirmed precisely the assertion made by geoffreykelly in general terms, you then personalized it and made it specific to you and in the process made a right royal public Macaw of yourself.

More millet for the bird in the corner. Pieces of eight, pieces of eight, skwwaaaawk!

spindork,

"You parrot back that this is not so..."

No I didn't.

"...filter your sources by your own criteria..."

Woe is me that "my criteria" happens to adhere to those I cite possessing qualified knowledge in their area....as opposed to the likes of Lord Monckton with his degree in classical architecture or Anthony Watts, the weather caster - and many more of the same ilk who display this particular effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Geoffrey,

I noticed that from "one" individual on the AGW side, because the passages he quoted displayed markedly superior grammar and rhetoric than his usual efforts.

That is "one" poster......it must get right up your nose that the overwhelming majority of us have a superior grasp of exposition and language.

I know the example to which you refer.

Don't paste the rest of us with it - and if you do, you had better provide examples as evidence.

In responding to SM, Poirot writes:"You trot out an article quoting a spokesman for the Global Warming Policy Foundation...which is a denialist group."

And there you have it. The article and all it contains can be ignored because it has a quote from someone who works for someone who might be partially funded by people Poirot doesn't like.

The article mentions that even Hanson (high-priest of the AGW movement)(Poirot will now obfuscate by talking about religious analogies)..that even Hanson acknowledges that temps aren't rising. The article mentions the increasing information and studies showing that climate models have exaggerated potential warming from increases in CO2. The referenced Economist article talks about how new information is suggesting that natural factors may be twice as important as the IPCC has claimed with aerosols much less important than claimed by the IPCC and the various AGW spruikers.

But alas and alack, all this can be safely ignored because the article has a quote from someone who works for someone who might be partially funded by people Poirot doesn't like.

And then they call others 'deniers'.

I used to get worried by this. But these days, when it is so patently obvious that the whole AGW scare is on the wane and those who've been saying for over a decade that it was all smoke a mirrors were right, it is just fun to sit back and observe the ways those who refuse to see the nose on their face perform mental gymnastics in order to maintain their fondly held beliefs.

In terms of the election, AGW will have no effect because most people have come to realise it is not a concern.