But I am still waiting for the first check . Does anyone know who the check is supposed to come from?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
Recent Comments
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
Get a load of this hippie will ya! Yet another Doctor.
What? They give these doctorates out in cornflakes packets these days?
Anyone else notice these blokes all look very similar? Pull off the socks n shoes, chuck on a kaftan and meet me at the commune. Bruddy hippies with their filthy feet and their stinkin’ filthy vegan farts. Hate ’em.
You know it makes sense, I’m Humbug.
You’ll notice that they never present a shred of proof that anyone is ever paid. As I like to point out to them, Alarmists are such unmitigated assholes that thousands of free men and woman across the globe will gladly oppose them for free as long as it takes. Also, skeptics never make the accusation that Alarmists are on the take because there are NO effective communicators on their side. Look at Romm. He’s such a detriment to the warmist cause, he must be paid by BigEvilOil.
Again with the irony.. Alarmist groups are far well more funded (in the billions), mostly by governments with an agenda. Even so, no amount of money changes whether anything anyone says is true or not.
This kind of ad-hom nonsense is the last bastion of those who can’t support their own arguments
Couldn’t have dreamed up a better visage of an ecotard if I tried!
But I am still waiting for the first check . Does anyone know who the check is supposed to come from?
Well apparently Dr. Gleick knows, so perhaps you might try asking him. Don’t hold you breath though; I have directly questioned such revelations before. I suspect that like all the other warmists who refer to the sceptics’ funding and highly organised structure, Gleick will decline to enlighten us with any of the trifling details.
“contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change.”
______________________________________________________________
Describes Dr. Hansen perfectly!
Did this guy just wake up from a coma. Now is hardly a time to regurgitate the same old CAGW BS. He’s still trying to make the long since debunked disease migration claims. The Klimate scammers need new tactics. The hysterical ranting has lost its ‘severe impact.’
One of the most tenuous aspects of the CAGW scam for me has always been their outrageous claims of “severe negative climate impacts.” If the climate hoax was even true any negative impacts would be accompanied by positive impacts. It would be a NET push, but the klimate Klowns insist that everything that would accompnay a few degrees of higher temperatures (over the course of a century) would be universally catastrophic.
This attitude that warming = catastrophe is revelatory that this isn’t a science based movement. It’s a neo-pagan religion.
got this comment from that site:
…..
Thank you Peter.
A documentary on the telly last night mentioned temperatures in the Antarctic had increased between 5 and 9 degrees and they interviewed scientists who had seen the change in wildlife with their own eyes. And still the deniers think it’s a misrepresentation designed to enrich Al Gore.
…
5-9 degrees? Only in Hansen’s dream (but he can color it red)…
and they saw it with their own eyes…Good Lord help us with idiots like that….
Steve, can you send me some of that hard earned money your going to get though? 🙂
We had a Congress woman that was able to feel Climate Change on her airplane ride last year!
Steven,
Get this!
This pinhead has inadvertently awarded NOAA with his #1 climate BS of the year award!
Does this whack job now view NOAA as “Climate Deniers”?
ROTFLMAO!
This is amazing!!! The MET Office spent $37 million pounds on a supercomputer that puts out 10,000 tons of carbon per year and they have the brass to blame their lack of accurate forecasts on lack of computing power in Nature Magazine. These crooks make Bernie Madoff look like a piker in comparison. Please tell me we aren’t still sending these morons money. In China they would have been lined up against a wall for such corruption.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101230/full/news.2010.685.html
“The UK has had big snowstorms both this year and last. Will this kind of weather be more common in future?”
“We don’t know. That’s exactly the sort of thing we need more computing power for”
Bwahahaa!
I’ve got some old co-op stamps I can send you Steve, will that help?
I get the feeling from reading that website they are in the AGW camp 😀
Andy
“The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.”
Well who can argue that there is anyone that has more intimate knowledge of BS than the collection of post-normal misfits above?
Prestigious list I see.
Bad Science (B.S.) = Anything contrary to Gleick’s purely political dogma.
Peter Gleick also thinks tap water in the US is better than bottled water:
His scientific opinion is that tap water in the United States is, generally, excellent.
http://earthsky.org/water/peter-gleick-on-evidence-that-bottled-water-is-unsustainable
So the harmful levels of fluorine and chlorine, and also the lead, is excellent, in his opinion. I cannot believe this guy calls himself a humanitarian.
Dr. Peter Gleick is one of the world’s leading water experts.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/bios
Another ‘expert’ to screw people’s lives up.
My 2 cents, that I posted at SF Gate.
Dr. Gleick: Interesting. So are you also awarding this to Dr. Phil Jones, of UEA? He has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Using your own guidelines, Dr. Jones would qualify to win the BS award.
As would Dr. North, of the NAS. When questioned by the Congressional Committee, if the NAS agreed with the Wegman report (which eviscerated the hockey stick methodology), Dr. North stated that indeed, the NAS had come to the same conclusions as the Wegman Panel. In fact, using your criteria, North would win 1st and 4th.
Other contestants in the Hockey Stick category would be Mcshane and Wyner, M&M 2003 and 2005, Joliffe, Christensen, Loehle…and the list goes on. There would be nearly as many winners as there was for the 2007 Nobel Prize.
Also adding to the confusion is that their hockey stick is now stuck in reverse!
Interesting. Gleick responded to me. As is my paranoid nature, I copied my response to him. It has some interesting responses buried in it:
Please wait while we perform your request.
This will remove the comment from our system.
Name withheld
LesJohnson
9:03 AM on December 31, 2010
This comment has been removed from our system.
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore LesJohnson. Show DetailsHide Details
Unfortunately for you, I do have the facts, and the sources. Your saying they are false, does not make it so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Jones agreed that there had been no significant warming since 1995. Its not a misquote.
On the NAS, from the Congressional Record:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
From Bloomfield, of the NAS panel:
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
(0)
(0)
Popularity: 0
| | [Report Abuse]
Delete
We’re sorry. We were unable to delete the comment at this time.
I can’t get comments now, on Gleick’s SFGate site. Can anyone else see comments?
Les,
I still see the comments.
It would not surprise me to learn that some switch has been thrown to not only censor your comments but to prevent you from even viewing them. Smears and censorship are the only tools left in the CAGW camp (assuming, of course, they ever had anything more than that).
The entire “Progressive” ideology is PURE mythology! And, that ideology can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum.
I couldn’t get to them either. Not even to view them.
Les:
I normally do not even attempt to post at most of the Chicken Little sites as I went through similar experiences at a few sites years ago. I cleared any Cookies for those sites to correct and stopped posting comments. I also do not want to increase readership at those type of sites so stopped visiting! Usually the abridged version at Tom Nelson is more than I want to know about what they have to say
Mike,
I agree. I used to attempt to engage the alarmists in debate at their Chicken Little sites. But, the censorship games which they universally play make that an exercise in futility.
SBVOR: Thanks, that is what I assumed. What comments are visible?
Les,
One (and only one) comment from you is visible.
That comment begins with:
“Dr. Gleick: Interesting. So are you also awarding this to Dr. Phil Jones, of UEA?”
Those who can still see comments can click here to view it.
Les,
Actually, if one expands your initial comment, Gleick’s response and your second comment is still visible (to me).
Having read Gleick’s response to you makes me wonder if he was the one who left this anonymous BS on my blog.
Mike: I am a slow learner. I keep doing it, hoping they will engage in discussion.
Oddly, I did get Schmidt to engage me on RC, and caught him out on the “Trouble with Harry”, and how he took it from CA. So, sometimes its worth it.
I tried to bet Romm, but I was not big enough a fish. That was the only post Romm allowed of mine.
But, Tom Fuller took me on as partner in his bet with Romm.
I tried to engage Romm, through Pielke jr, by backing a bet to charity, but Romm backed out of that, too.
I followed Gleick to HuffPost, but either they have very slow moderators, or I am banned there, too.
I look at this way; If they won’t engage me, when I am polite and use facts and references, it means that in our little battle, between him and I, they have lost. Perhaps no else knows it, but he and I do.
Romm has posted hit pieces about me, and then refused to post my (polite, on-topic) responses. What a guy!
Quoting Peter Gleick:
“The NAS has explicitly rejected the Wegman report and vindicated the hockey stick.”
Anybody who continues to embrace the OBVIOUS fraud of the Hockey Stick has NO CREDIBILITY!
I can see them now. I use Firefox, and have it delete cookies, so when I closed it, I was able to get back in. Both comments are there.
But I never made it past moderators at HuffPost, at least not yet.
Small victories, Steven, small victories. Pettiness is an admission of defeat.
Oddly, I have found that the so-called skeptic sites are much less moderated. I cannot think of one CAGW site that is NOT moderated heavily.
happy new year, all.
Its 20:15 local time, and time for beer. Lots of beer….