Climate Rush activists storm Daily Express newsroom

One of the group gave a short presentation on the facts of climate change, and they gave Parrott crib notes on refuting arguments by climate sceptics. Parrott explained that what sells papers is the front page, which is the reason for sensational headlines. Here are a couple of examples from the Daily Express: "Climate change lies exposed" and "100 reasons why global warming is natural".

But did he believe the facts of climate change, they asked? He wasn't sure. But he would pass on the leaflets for a Climate Rush meeting next Thursday to his daughters, who are "into that sort of thing", he said.

The "suffragette-inspired women-led eco-activist group", as they are described by Omond, only took direct action after two Press Complaints Commission letters and emails to the editor asking for a meeting had come to nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-rush-daily-express

Having got absolutely nowhere with previous letters about CAGW to my MP Ming Campbell, I thought I might get a more considered response to my letter last week about the No Pressure video.

I received this letter this morning, with no answer to any of my questions about government funding of 10;10 propaganda, etc, just this:

"I refer to your email 5th October and note your comments on the video "No Pressure".
Yours sincerely
Menzies Campbell"

I consider that reply is insulting and a waste of a stamp.

The lack of legal minds, and their formal procedures, was a real shame in the recent inquiries into climategate. The courts made an impact with the constraints imposed on the use of Gore's movie in schools in England & Wales. The courts seem to have had an impact in exposing irresponsibilities in the care of temperature records in New Zealand. Now in the USA, it seems they may help at last bring to the light of day whatever it is by way of evidence (as opposed to hand waving) that has convinced people like James Hansen that there are grounds for alarm about CO2:

'According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration's move to curb 'greenhouse gases' using the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn legal challenges from more than 90 companies and trade associations. This could be very interesting since any of these legal challenges conceivably might result in subpoenas issued for infamous warmists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, forcing them to provide documents and prove their flimsy AGW theory under cross-examination in a court of law. Here's what happened when James Hansen was 'boxed in' on the witness stand once before, dumbfounded when cross-examined and asked to name just one other scientist who agreed with his assertion that sea levels would rise more than 1 meter this century, stating "I could not, instantly." '

See: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/epa-sued-by-over-90-entities-for.html

Sunny Hundal is a sensitive bunny, just posted the comment below over here:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/10/in-praise-of-marina-pepper-domestic-extremist/

It is in response to having two comments deleted (I'm guessing this comment won't last overly long either, Sunny's comment was: "Why do these f*cking climate change denying nutjobs have to pollute every thread?"):

"Deleting and abuse is so much easier than addressing the content of Professor Hal Lewis's letter, Sunny, I guess he's an eminent nutjob.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

We'll keep polluting every blog that promotes those who wish to control our lives in the name of this scam. Mind your business and we'll mind ours."

Folks!!

Its 10:10 day!!!!!

Just in case the excitement has passed you by.

I am really looking forward to the reports of how many kiddie deniers they manage to kill. No foaming blood on the River Mole as yet ..but hey its still early.

In case its me they come to get (a Greenie knows where I live and has even broken bread chez moi) I bid you all a fond farewell. Fight the good fight those who remain.

Seems appopriate that my namesake and possible forefather was also no believer in AGW for he said as he was martyred on their own version of 10:10 burn the heretics day

'We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.'

..no worries about CO2 for him.

In case you haven't picked it up, the resignation letter of Professor Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society, as well as being a little forthright, cites HSI with some favour.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

10:10:10 only a few days away now and we are obviously going to get warmista overload in the MSM for the entire day, so what about creating a special ocassion. We have April fools day where untruths and practical jokes are allowed until midday.

How about 'Octoberjest', the day when any c**p can hit the media and bring a smile to our faces because no one will take any notice upon this specific day. Once you are pointed to the latest CAGW beleifs released in time for this autumnal ocassion the responce should be that it is Octoberjest the CAGW all fools day.

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/28/science-journalism-spoof

How about this paragraph buried within the article (just can't resist a dig):

Often we can only assess the importance of research with hindsight. It was several decades before the full significance of the 1896 observation by Svante Arrhenius that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperature became obvious. Or at least obvious to all but a minority of ideologically driven morons.

Wind farms can affect local weather patterns!
- can cause locally heating or cooling up to 1.5 degC
(of course I should include the range, not just worst case: "0.4 to 1.5 degC)

[So 'solving climate change' causes bigger local temperature changes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11470261
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/28/1000493107.abstract

This is worth a look.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/abc-fails-listeners