What's Natural about Jim Steele's Astroturfing?

After reviewing Steele’s odd April 17th “Safe Space” column about opinions regarding Polar Bears in the Inuit’s warming Arctic world, I became curious and looked up the word Kappiananngittuq which Jim tossed around so glibly. 

I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ and I’ll tell you, I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles - it turned out that upon closer examination there were 29 links to articles that mirrored the same deceptive What's Natural? article.  

What is going on?  Have Jim Steele, Sherman Frederick, Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  Or is it just astroturfing?  

Then I thought of the rationalists, the science respecting side of this public dialogue, ten years I’ve been working at trying to network with like minded, but there’s no network out there.  Like everyone is off doing their own thing and no one has the time to care about the rest of it.  Or something like that.  

I don’t know.  It's like very few seem to appreciate the gravity of the Faith-Blinded political drive to destroy rationalism and democratic governance.  Think I'm exaggerating, ever listen to American Christian radio!?  Ever listen to FOX, or Trump?  

All I do know is the clock keeps ticking and the ruthless intellectual frauds and rhetorical bullies continue having free reign to mislead and deceive and slander and astroturf their utterly self-destructive delusional crap as much as they like.  It’s a disgrace, the founding fathers of the intellectual enlightenment would be appalled.

Below I include the google screen shots if anyone cares to investigate.  After that I share a good sized collection of articles about Social Media manipulation.

Google search results for _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ (May 28, 2019)

click on the images for a clear view:

part 5 - Now AL's complaining about me appropriating WattsUpWithThat's name.

AL responded over at YT and since it was a rather interesting response I'll add it to our virtual debate with my responses. {touch up edits 12/11/15 am}

____________________________________________________

AL Yesterday 9:18 PM

+citizenschallengeYT Sure I can debate, and I have done so here too. I have given you links to scientific papers and facts in respond to what you have posted here. But I never get any responses if you red them or not. You have at least a months worth of reading just about MWP. {Thank you for that remark, you have just given me the seed for my next serious essay "MWP and Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine considered" - unfortunately this little wage-slave has a hell of a lot of work lined up currently so it'll be a while.  But I love the challenge.}

What I (and others) don't like about what you're doing here with your blog, is the cheap way to try and drive traffic to it and not to mention the blatant choice of domain name for it - a way to ride on another site's success that is frowned upon by most people that deals with the web professionally. {Oh, the irony.}

The other thing about your "debate" style is exactly what you are doing in the post I'm responding to - as soon as you get a little hurt either by facts or opinions, you immediately throw shit on people, like you now did with Anthony. Just like most warmists.  {Why not list specifics?}  

At least NOAA asked Anthony for his work so they could use it themselves, so his work is appreciated. {Why not cite the specifics?  

I don't care what you believe Anthony did, 
we expect you to show us specifically where those valiant efforts are written up.  
Then we can proceed with a debate.  
Smoke'n Mirrors isn't enough.}

But I guess if you react to what he has done, then you must absolutely hate Mann and his team. Because that is documented tampering with data that even led to a hearing.  {Where's this documented, in a private email where a frustrated human allowed himself to vent to a trusted colleague?  
WHAT DATA WAS TAMPERED WITH? WHERE? WHEN?}

Oh, no I forgot - anything goes from that side of the debate.

{Always charges and claims, how about some specifics?}

Edit: And you will never figure out what's going on with those science denying, since you're the one denying it. The science is clear, and so are the empirical data we have now since at least 20 years. This goes both for the temperature, the levels of CO2 and how CO2 acts in the atmosphere with no positive feedback.  {Why can't you acknowledge that I've spent years looking into those claims and arguments, in depth - which my record at WUWTW makes abundantly clear?}

Give it a few more years and you will accept the data too.

{again no hint of what or where this data is coming from.  
Always the mystery.  It's almost mystical.}

-------------------

AL, 

review my blog, you will notice that over the decades I have looked into these MWP claims in way more depth than you have.  Anthony like McIntyre have built their contrarian careers on misrepresenting the science and attacking Dr. Mann's integrity, rather then delving into understanding the science.  

Catmando Does Jim Steele

Unfortunately, my current work load has kept me from pending projects, but I haven't forgotten them.  This Sunday evening I found myself revisiting the Jim Steele Affair that I wrote about in March {and here}, April, May, trying to catch up on his latest shenanigans.  In the process I found this very good examination of the game Jim Steele is playing.  It's written by Catmando over at IngeniousPursuits.blogspot.com.

Much of the article is about Steele's twisted attack on the documentary "Years of Living Dangerously" though I've clipped most of that portion of his article in this reposting.  What I've left in place is Catmando's thoughtful exposure of how a phony misuses the quotes of a great, solid scientist such as Richard Feynman.

It is well written, insightful and worth the read, and I'm happy to share parts of it over here and encourage you to visit IngeniousPursuits.blogspot.com and read the entire article - then pass it along to others who care and want to better understand the game these disingenuous frauds such as climate science denier Jim Steele and his seeming mentor Anthony {the contrarian} Watts are playing on a gullible public. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Deniers crying in their beers

by Catmando

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.com/2014/05/deniers-crying-in-their-beers.html?showComment=1413773722588#c4642141151561386881

I'll give Jim Steele his due.  He is the first denier I have ever seen come up with perhaps the most important Richard Feynman quote of all:

[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. 

For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

I've crossed the first bit out because Steele doesn't use that.  You can check here (archived).  You can also see that he didn't bother with the next paragraph:

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. 

If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. 

In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.  {my highlights}

[Feynman quotes from here]

Heartland Institute caught in a lie - Chinese Academy of Science objects

It's official, Heartland Institute and Anthony Wattsupwiththat have once again been caught out in a lie.

You can find the following statement at the official Chinese Academy of Sciences webpage:

http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

I have added the highlights

The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”

时间: | 2013-06-14 | | 【大 中 小】【打印】【关闭】

The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.  The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:

Chinese Academy of Sciences comments on Heartland / Watts claims

Since I've found that Anthony Watts and Heartland Institute can't be taken at face value, {considering their respect for the truth is non-existent}, I decided to email the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the hope of getting to the bottom of the mystery of the missing substance behind claims of a collaboration and June 15th Gala unveiling of the NIPCC attack on climate science.

Dear CAS Representative,

Anthony Watts at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/12/h ... -ceremony/

claims
Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony:

"All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013 to speak about the translation of Climate Change Reconsidered. Scores of additional scientists, economists, and policy experts reviewed and contributed to the volumes."

But I can't find any such event being announce at your website?
http://english.cas.cn/Ne/
=========================

Is this event happening?

Any information you can offer will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and hopefully interest.

Sincerely,
PM

This morning I received a reply to my question.

A closer look at McI/Watts' complaints re. Marcott et al - HotWhopper

Over the past few weeks the internet's climate science denying echo-chamber has gone into over-time churring out one piece of opinion and vacuum chamber science after another.  Unfortunately, it's another example of 'outcome focused' advocacy, rather than a serious dispassionate examination of the paper in question.

The problem with this approach is that McIntyre/Watts' 'science' is science in a vacuum chamber.  Unsurprisingly his 'reviewers' are his own audience, folks who desperately want to not accept what the science and Earth observations are telling us.  

And when actual scientists who understand this stuff point out errors, misconceptions and alteration of the facts ~ it get's written off... {or ridiculed to oblivion}... as part of the conspiracy.

Is this anyway to approach geophysical facts and the future that is barreling down on us?

~ ~ ~

In any event, Sou over at Hot Whopper.com has taken the time to put together an excellent critique of major flaws in the story-line the echo-chamber is putting out there, in their desperate struggle to discredit and out-scream the important lessons Marcott et al. 2013 has to offer.

If you are interested the questions raised by McIntyre and Watts, you owe it to yourself to read through this examination.

I thank Sou for her kind permission to copy and repost her article.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 2013

Watts is Whopping Mad (Crazy) after Marcott et al - Must be the Heat!

WUWT: ‘Skeptical’ ‘Science’ gets it all wrong – yet again...

I know people who seriously claim that Watts Up With That is a scientifically informative website.  
So why then does Anthony Watts post stuff like this thing?  It's authored by none other than the grand Lord of contrarian political performance artists Lord C. Monckton of Benchley.

What he wrote was so plainly deceptive I felt compelled to reprint it along with appropriate informational links to help clear through his smoke and mirrors.

As for Monckton's over the top complaints about SkepticalScience.com, why shouldn't people try to gather as much information as possible?  SkepticalScience is a repository for the growing body of climate related science publications.  It's there for easy public access.  And those folks certainly don't deserve the kind of attacks they have been enduring lately.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

Unfortunately I haven't had any time for this blog - but since SkepticalScience.com recently posted an article that does a nice job of exploring the manipulation and deception 
(my words, not their's!) Anthony Watts is guilty of and that inspired this blog to begin with I will take advantage of SkS's generous public offer to reprint their article in full (http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html).

As for PBS, in another example that "money don't talk, it screams" apparently the agenda driven anti-science Heartland Foundation has become advisors to PBS news programming.  What the hell is up with that?

(for more on PBS HewsHour's tenancy for false balance also visit:
 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/03/476724/false-balance-on-climate-change-at-pbs-newshour/ )

=================================================

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That? (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 20 September 2012 by dana1981 We have previously criticized the mainstream media for favoring false balance over factually accurate scientific reporting when it comes to climate change.  In one of the worst examples of this unfortunate and counter-productive practice, the US Public Boadcasting…

Anthony Watts proves Mt. Kilimanjaro escapes global warming

From the annals of Anthony’s WUWT blog:

"Al Gore’s global warming claims on Kilimanjaro glacier – finally dead and buried in the Climategate 2.0 emails – even Phil Jones and Lonnie Thompson don’t believe it"
Posted on November 22, 2011 by Anthony Watts

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WUWT: Al Gore said in his AIT bag of BS that Mount Kilimanjaro was losing its snow/ice cover due to global warming.
{...}
I’ve said this many times, Kilimanjaro’s loss of ice cover has to do with sublimation, not warming. The picture of Thompson next to the sliver of ice proves it. Note there’s no meltwater near him. {cc notes: he's standing on a talus slope, it is porous and sloped downhill. We wouldn't see standing water if a fire hose were dousing that ice sliver!} That sliver is a symptom of sublimation – ice evaporating directly into the air, just like ice cubes shrink when left in the freezer too long.

Almost a year ago I wrote this:
OSU’s Dr. Lonnie Thompson pushes gloom and doom, still thinks the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming

Then Anthony goes on to show some of those dastardly ClimateGate emails.  Reaching back to a 2004 email he producing this damning bit of evidence:

Anthony Watts 'If the past is indicative of the future...' The "Skeptic's" Illusion

 I do try to be patient and polite with "skeptic" questions and comments, but sometimes the dog-chasing-tail dialogue and obtuseness overwhelms.  The following comment came from someone who firmly believes there's nothing out of the ordinary with our climate patterns, and that we should do nothing that might impact our dedication to corporate free market principles.  Well it got under my skin, and I had time on my hands, so I let him have it.  The attitude reminded so much of Anthony that I've decided to adapt that post to this little note dedicated to Anthony Watts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is written:  "If the past is indicative, we'll have more and worse in the future, but we'll also have more and better, and more of the better will overwhelm more of the worse."

"If the past is indicative . . ."  Are you serious?

How is our planet... our biosphere equal to the one I inhabited in the early 1960s?

"If the past is indicative . . ."
would demand that the current situation is analogue to the past!
How would you justify that supposition?  Have any evidence?

HAS WUWT.com CENSORED YOUR COMMENTS?

Wattsupwiththat.com has a very rigorous, if one sided, comments policy.

Those of us who have tried to present the rational scientific side of the AGW discussion over at Anthony Watts' website, know from first hand experience how freely they cleanse opposing commentary.  In fact, it's the main reason I resorted to putting together this modest website in the first place.

A couple posts back, I was able to show an example of this censoring of information that by all rights deserves to be posted in a forum that boasts an interest in understanding the science behind our planet's Anthropogenic Global Warming situation.  {Well at least if they took that boast seriously.}

John O'Sullivan: "Hansen, Sagan and Venus with magellan probe" > Examining The Art Of Deception

 This is an extension of a discussion of sorts over at SkepticSocietyForum 

and though I don't have the time to do it justice,  

the article by one John O'sullivan 

is so outrageously deceptive and plain wrong... 

add to that, 
being a perfect example of what I mean by denialist "crazy-making," 

that I need to at least take a stab at examining and exposing 
the long list of errors in this piece of propaganda over learning. 
 {June 7, 2012}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I wholeheartedly encourage anyone 
who see's anything here they like and might be able to use, 
please take it, do with it what you can.  


We need more people to vocally object to the crazy-making 
of agenda driven deceivers such a this O'Sullivan character.
{6/3/2012}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Black print represents O'Sullivan's paragraphs which I have included complete.
My replies and references will be in blue print.

====================================================================

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/top-scientists-vent-on-nasas-sub-prime-greenhouse-gas-hoaxere-optional/

Top Scientists Vent on NASA’s Sub Prime Greenhouse Gas Hoaxer
May 20, 2012
±2400 words

Climatologist James Hansen is under sustained attack accused of global warming fraud at a time when the powerful science journal, Nature admits “research is riddled with systematic errors.”

"Hansen, Sagan and Venus with Magellan Probe"

by  johnosullivan

=====================================

SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

I know some claim SkepticalScience.com is no different from WUWT.  

I have been told: 

"it's just a different perspective:

you choose to believe SkepticalScience.com 

and I choose to believe WUWT.”

But, is it as simple as that?  How do we decide on the respective veracity of each?

Heartland Institute's Hired Guns & The NIPCC... Mr. Littlemore

Watts has been having a rager over at his blog... adding his own spin fast as he can.  Here's a recent update:  UPDATE 55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up.
(Anthony) Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

Yes it is disgusting that a tiny Heartland can get the type of financial backing to pay professional contrarians in a media effort far removed from doing actual science.  But, folks like Anthony are so focused on their political goals they feel justified doing anything and saying anything so long as they can out shout the voices of science and rationality.

Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog.com has a great article highlighting one aspect of that rational.  Hire scientists - not to learn but to create rhetorical parlor debate tricks intent on stonewalling any recognition of what climate science is teaching us. 

Check out The Heartland Institute’s “Brain Trust” - who are incidentally, pretty much the same dozen folks who produce the Nongovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

I'm posting this {words are all Littlemore, highlight are all mine} because in conversations at various internet discussion forums, one of the main refrains that gets tossed in my face is how it all comes down to which scientist you choose to believe.  Coupled onto that is the claim that government and university scientists manipulate their data to achieve some mandated consensus.  

Sadly those charges come from people who have either remained blessedly ignorant of the parade of scientific literature and the history of their learning process - or folks who are hired guns and for whom honesty is a joke when it gets in the way of 
their corporate wild west style free-market agenda.

As support for this image of The Heartland Institute as ruthlessly dedicated to a message rather than learning about climatology I copy the following from Richard Littlemore’s February 24, 2012 post at Desmogblog.com because it contains names and sums and reveals Heartland Institute for the agenda driven lobby organization that it is.  Dedicated to undermining serious rational science.  

It scares the hell outta me that such people remain so powerful and are allowed to cause such counter productive crazy-making...  since there's not much I can do, here's my contribution to the effort... to witness and document this scandal as it plays out.
 

What passes for a Brain Trust at Heartland?

Watts Up With DenialGate ?

Anthony Watts has made a good living proclaiming that the scientific community's “consensus” cannot be trusted.  A consensus that's been arrived at after decades of study by literally tens of thousands of researchers.  Instead trotting out a gallery of so-called independent scientists to present an alternative view of reality.

It seems that Heartland likes his work too.  As revealed by the recent revelations of DenialGate, or as I like calling it HeartlandGate.

Of course, Anthony is crying foul and claiming it’s all a fraud... though Heartland sounded less certain when apologizing to donors for their names being exposed.  They do assert at least one particularly damning document was a fake.  Worth mentioning is that Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman reporting for the NYTimes weren’t impressed with the denial writing:

“Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.”

As for Anthony ~ seems he was paid $44,000 in January with another $44,000 promised for setting up a website “devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s website."  Which in Watts' world means finding the slightest flaw and hyper-inflating it to justify a total disregard for what the data is telling us.

Recall that Watts’ previous effort to undermine trust in the official temperature records, the Surfacestations Project turned out to be a dud that, just like the recent BEST Study, turned out to validate the official temperature records {and here}... unless of course one takes Watts’ egomaniacal stand that anyone disagreeing with him is in on the “climate conspiracy” one that involves tens of thousands of researchers across countless scientific disciplines, no less.

Among the contemptible revelations perhaps this one reported at ThinkProgress.org by Brad Johnson is the worst.  A strategic attack on science within schools {no wonder America is falling behind in science education} :

Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather“), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on.

Wojick will receive $5,000 per module, with twenty modules produced a year. Wojick, who manages the Climate Change Debate listserv, is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology.

Another revealing and disturbing quote:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For more information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/13/205343/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-conflict-of-interest-weather-stations/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/ 

http://www.desmogblog.com/it-s-bird-it-s-hockey-stick-it-s-faked-document

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/16/denialgate-get-it-all-here/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73002.html

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Perhaps the finest example of the crazy-making Anthony Watts champions is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Anthony tells us we are supposed to trust a handful of scientists ~ while disregarding the efforts of tens of thousands of hardworking researchers.  

Ironically the 2011 Interim NIPCC Report's list of intrepid independent scientists consists of a total of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter and eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

So while WUWT glibly demonizes thousands of mainstream scientists for their greedy grant money grubbing bias ~ we should remain blind to the fact that most of NIPCC scientists are on the Heartland payroll.  

Check it out: “The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).”

As those Dana over at SkepticalScience.com have pointed out: 

“Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors {who donate their time}is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. 

Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RealClimate took a look at NIPCC’s alternate reality back in 2008, it’s worth a read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience reports on the breaking story as do many other good sources.  To mention just a few:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/02/dissuading-teachers-from-teaching-science-the-leak-of-alleged-heartland-institute-documents/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part two)

Regarding the substance of the Wall Street Journal’s letter “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” signed by 16 supposedly “prominent scientists”

The letter can be found at here.

{Below the letter’s text is in black, with my comments in blue.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶ one:
Yet, if this is the case then way could they only muster 16 signees?  Worse only two have actual climatology experience and seven of the sixteen are directly connected to right-wing think tanks that actively opposed any action to address Anthropogenic Global Warming on economic grounds.

{please do read on}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Don’t mock the Monck" ~ WUWT 11/20/11 ~ Anthony's claims examined

 I'd like to examine another post over at WUWT 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/
Don’t mock the Monck
Posted on November 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

“Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.”
{...}
“Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers. . .”

Yet if one takes the time to look up their member profile here’s what you’ll find for Hugh O’Donoghue:

A Comment at Watt's Up With That

 I've just posted the following at Watt's Up With That - 
it remains to be seen if their moderator decides to trash it... 
thus for good measure I figured I should 
document the post over here:

It concerns the discussion over there that seems to have 
gotten side tracked on Monckton's peerage rather on 
Monckton's serial misrepresentations of science and quotes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well it's official this comment did not get through 
the censors at WUWT, 
although their comments are finally moving away from peerage nonsense.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What's with this diversion about the Lord this or Lord that?
...
Monckton misrepresents both his standing as a member of the House of Lords as "FaceFirst" pointed out [January 16, 2012 at 5:16 am], if you don't believe him try to find Monckton's name on the official list of members [http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/]
And then there's this official reprimand demanding Monckton stop making these false claims: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
~ ~ ~ 
quoting from that letter:
"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.


Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. 
It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. . ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
He has also misrepresented is roll as Prime Minister Thatcher's advisor.  
From SPPI's personnel page: "SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. . ."
and then the lavish claims made here at WUWT see:
“Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”
Posted on June 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

...
Yet the man isn’t mentioned once in Margaret Thatcher’s 914 page autobiography.  In fact, she credits one George Guise as being her science policy advisor.
~ ~ ~ 
Why don’t such “inconsistencies” send up red flags to thinking skeptics?

And isn’t all this attempting to build up the Lord’s supposed “authority” in the eyes of his audience nothing more than an appeal to authority?  I thought you folks attack ‘appeals to authority’ why is it OK for the Lord to play that card so eloquently?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But the real concern should be over his constant misreporting scientific work as
John Abraham [http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/] and
Peter Hadfield [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM] have documented?

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files

Considering the recent dust up between Monckton plus Anthony Watts v. Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 - 
I figured I should repost these for interested students 

of the politics of Anthropogenic Global Warming denial. 

And to highlight that Monckton’s record of deception goes way back.

Admittedly the following isn’t the best 
since I am simply an interested citizen 

and neither an academician nor journalist, 

but the parade of deception has driven me to do 
what little I can to oppose it.

Please feel free to use any of the following - 

where I reference other sources please 
be sure to include those references.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~