Bishop Hill Desmog and facts
Apr 18, 2011 Climate: Sceptics There's a very funny article by Emma Pullman at Desmog, looking at a GWPF article discussing the list of 900 sceptic papers that is currently doing the rounds. Ms Pullman is not impressed noting:
Sourcewatch's digging reveals [GWPF's] links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers.
This is the organisation which includes a bunch of Labout peers on its board, right? I mean, if you look down their lists of board members Lords Barnett, Donoghue, and Baroness Nicholson are all of the left. Lawson is the only Tory on the board. I guess Ms Pullman forgot to mention left-wing climate change deniers.
Then there's this:
The GWPF's director is the Heartland Institute's Benny Peiser.
I wasn't aware that Benny worked for Heartland - I had always thought he worked for GWPF and a brief googling of the situation confirms that this is indeed the case. The source for Ms Pullman's contrary claim seems to be that Benny is on a list of global warming experts on the Heartland Institute website. His presence on the list seems to have been prompted by his appearance at the institute's 2009 conference. These details are apparently enough for Ms Pullman to describe him as the "Heartland Institute's...". I find it simply astonishing that anyone can play so fast and loose with the facts. Do these people have no shame?
Then we come to the meat of the article. Ms Pullman has discovered that some of the people who wrote these 900 sceptical papers are, wait for it, sceptics. Ms Pullman describes this revelation as "pretty incriminating". At this point I lost the will to read on. Really - is this the best they can do?
Reader Comments (28)
"At this point I lost the will to read on. Really - is this the best they can do?"
Sadly - It is all they NEED to do..........
About Emma:
Emma Pullman is passionate about climate change and uncovering spin. She holds a Master's degree in Political Science with a specialty in European Politics
In addition to her DeSmogBlog work, Emma is the Lead Researcher and Project Manager with Hoggan and Associates, and is currently working with Jim Hoggan on his book exploring the history of corporate propaganda
And this is an example of, ahem, their information..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jISlelzxKyI&feature=player_embedded
They will do whatever it takes to "win"; to force everyone to behave in the way that these people have decided is "right". Shame doesn't even make it onto their radar -- the end justifies the means.
So they have run out of "science" then?
With research like this I'm guessing shes aiming for a job wiht the print media.
Propaganda 101 - shoot the messenger
I am going to write a detailed rebuttal to this later today which will be rather embarrassing but for now I already wrote a rebuttal to their source from the Carbon Brief,
Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4030
Stay tuned, I will email the Bishop.
Is this "linked to Exxon-Mobil" not starting to wear a little thin?
I mean, if I were Mann or Trenberth or Schmidt I'd be squirming with embarrassment at the puerility of these people. They are becoming so counter-productive.
And for some reason the women seem to be the worst. Is there a reason for this?
Now wasn't a certain (discredited) East Anglian climate research oufit found to have accepted largesse from Big OIl? Shouldn't someone tell Emma.
So:
"...some of the people who wrote these 900 sceptical papers are,.........sceptics"
That's it then, I'm convinced that AGW alarmism is the way to go - I'm converted!
Yes children. It's still not okay to ask questions.
And if you do ask questions, a lady with a Masters in Political Science (surely a contradiction here?) will come along and be hugely, inaccurately unpleasant to you. On Grist, no less.
Shiver.
I've been trying to start an argument in their comments, but no one seems to want to come out and play. You would think Ms Pullman would want to defend her analysis, but evidently not, and nor do many others by the look of it
The Bishop notes:
Being a slow night in the colony I did read on; and then went through the "comments" following.
All but one of the comments said, essentially, "rats".
My reaction was to remember my extreme youth when I, too, could get inspired to rave on (crazy feeling) with only one side of a many-faceted thing in my brain and not enough wisdom to know my own supreme ignorance.
Ah, well; kids will be kids...
Maybe Emma is thinking of creating a blacklist of sceptical scientists. Oh I forgot, that's already been done. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/
Part 1,
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
"DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money". Since it's creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources."
Funny how the incorrect assumption has changed:
It used to be 'right-wing deniers' but nowadays it's 'right-wing libertarian deniers.
No children. No more questions today. Sit quietly and do as you are told.
[Snip - banned word] Resort To Lying - Shock Horror
Monday 18 April 2011
Daily Telegraph
"Met Office chief receives death threats from climate change sceptics."
see: http://tinyurl.com/5r7wel8
Sadly you are failing to acknowledge her superior education that allows her to evaluate the highly technical work of the Scientists who work and produce in the field...
Emma Pullman is passionate about climate change and uncovering spin. She holds a Master's degree in Political Science with a specialty in European Politics...
Who better to evaluate the worth of climate science....?????
The medium is the message.
Marshall MaCluhan knew a thing or two when he coined the phrase 'The medium is the message' all those years ago. 'De Smog Blog' says it all.
'Why all the women?' someone asks, knittingly, and I wonder 'Why all the hate?' which is assymetrically distributed in this war. You'd think the passion of hatred would carry all before it, but curiosity still stands struck with awe at the end of the day.
====================
Statement: 1 + 1 = 2
Mathematician: "And your point is ...?"
Sceptic: "Could be, but I would like a second opinion."
AGW Monger: "If the words were uttered by someone who is kind to furry animals with big brown eyes then it will be true. However, if it was said by a scoundrel with a connection to Big Oil then it is false.
Typo alert:
"... which includes a bunch of Labout peers ..."
There is a "ya" missing ...!
Complete rebuttal,
Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"
"In an iconic twist of irony the website funded by a convicted money launderer attempts to smear respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with them as funded by fossil fuel companies. What is falsely implied is that these scientists are corrupt and fossil fuel companies are paying them to be skeptical. This is an easy argument to prove, you simply need to show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from a fossil fuel company. Alarmists never show this because they cannot. These scientists all held a skeptical position prior to receiving any monetary donations. Any monetary donations these scientists received was because the donor agreed with the scientific position that the scientist already held. Alarmists cannot comprehend this irrefutable logic because they emotionally refuse to accept that there are credentialed scientists who do not share their beliefs."
OMG! She even rolls out the discredited "97% of scientists ..." line!
Not only that, the regulars defend it to the death, they think its real science, I've been told how rigorous that was, and how there were "hundreds of thousands" of papers supporting AGW.
Reality is a foreign concept over there
O/T but @ Kim
i don't see any hate, but having read your comments here & elsewhere i probably am missing your point (never got poetry for some reason) :-(
for some reason i am reminded of a nursery rhyme 'wee willie winkie runs round the toun ...'
can't remember the rest.
agree tho' men/me are weird.
Just went to that site (run by Suzuki clones) for the first time in a very long time. I stopped going there a long time ago after seeing one of their authors use the sleaziest trick of all - using a reference for something that the reference did NOT say. It was about polar bears so I suppose that would be expected.
But then I saw why I really, really should believe everything they say, And probably why this sweet young propagandist believes what she says. Look who 'peer reviewed' their 'Bible':
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO
That's it. Debate's over.