Monthly Archives: May 2012

Eco-terrorism – coming to a town near you….

In the climate of manufactured death threats against poor climate scientists at ANU, the real terror is being waged by eco-terrorists in Europe:

Climate of Fear: Terror Campaign Against Scientists Very Real.

It’s a commonplace of the mainstream media that climate scientists and environmentalists are operating in a “climate of fear” under a barrage of death threats from hardline skeptics, determined to get their way using violence and intimidation. The fact that the threats mentioned turn out to be largely non-existent almost seems neither here nor there for the media. The story is never followed up. But the fact remains that there is a climate of fear. There is a campaign of terror being waged against scientists and technicians. The difference is that this campaign is being waged by environmental extremists and unlike the sceptic “campaign” it is very, very real. Read the rest…


As I’ve said before, for those who truly believe that the earth is going to fry from man’s CO2, these must be increasingly despairing times. If they truly believe we, the sceptics, are killing their children and our very planet by our inaction on CO2, are they going to simply lie down and prepare to die? Logically, we must fully expect increasing extremism and possibly violence against sceptics and society at large from these misguided people.

In this context, those who attack and dehumanise dissident scientists to the climate alarmist orthodoxy with half joking calls to blow up sceptics, bar-code everyone at birthtattoo their foreheads and gas them should take care that they are not inciting to violence… like here.


Everything about Craig Thompson and this Labor government’s protection of him, including the 3 year ‘investigation’ by FWA of a handful of credit card statements is a political cover up and corruption worthy of a Mugabi government, not an Australian one.

We trash the integrity of our political processes at our own risk.

470 sceptic climate scientists are not lay people.

On the ABC’s  Climate Change Q&A last week, the warmists as always, misframe the debate as being between climate scientists and the lay population, and thus between the enlightened and the ignorant. What is infuriating is that just as Nick Minchin and Clive Palmer on that night, the sceptics always fall for this straw man construct, hook line and sinker and try to defend it.
No, it is not scientist versus lay people, it is scientist versus scientist and the lay people, just like a jury, decide which expert witness is more trustworthy.
Let me use a scientific paper written by a warmist expressedly to prove warmists are right, to prove to you my point; the paper is by William Anderegg et al, “Expert credibility in climate change”, PNAS:2010.
In this paper, the authors identified the warring climate scientists:

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC….We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n =903)…. We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n =472).

Now the authors go on to use almost laughable arguments to discover that believer CE scientists publish more articles with the word “climate” in the title and thus must be greater experts and to be trusted. But has anyone spotted the read data?

In this paper, warmist advocates themselves provide data and admit the argument to is between climate scientists, 903 alarmist and 472 sceptic, to be precise. What? Not 97% convinced vs 3% sceptic, but almost 500 sceptic vs 900 alarmist?

500 vs 900 ?

(And this even with the ‘convinced’ only needing to be safely “broadly agreeing” with IPCC while the unconvinced were “strongly disagreeing” despite the professional risks involved).

No, it’s not scientists vs. the lay public. It’s scientists versus scientist, and those scientists with reservations, especially after 12 years of no warming, have shown themselves to be far more credible. It’s time the governments started to hear the message from the vast number of sceptic scientists and not the politicised scientific organisations.