[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Post #744, njp?

Is Pachuari a fit and proper person to be IPCC Chairman.

Well, I preferred Watson. Pachauri was put there by Bush, at the behest of Exxon. And I guess they are as mad as hell he didn't play the game they expected.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by njp

You can try. How is your exciting analysis of wind turbines coming along?

I've only been out this morning and didn't see any. However, I was in the general area of the proposed siting if the revolving generators I spoke of a couple of weeks ago and I've found some further comment which I have to type out in full in order to post it on here. As soon as I've completed some research on antiques, I'll post it. :@

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

The claim that Bouwer was an "insurance salesman" is the lie to which I refer. Whether it's your lie, or the Raspberry Fool's lie, I care not. But it's a lie. He in fact worked for a year as a trainee in the Geoscience Research Group of Munich Reinsurance Company.

(Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually being kind to him calling him a salesman instead of a trainee. But I don't really need to point out their flaws, do I. You continue to do it for me.)

And then of course this "trainee" with one year's insurance experience served as IPCC Lead Author for the chapter titled Insurance and Other Financial Services.

Comedy Gold.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

Well, I preferred Watson. Pachauri was put there by Bush, at the behest of Exxon. And I guess they are as mad as hell he didn't play the game they expected.

Forget Bush and Exxon, that's just deflection on your part.

Do you consider Pachuari a fit and proper person for his position?

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by njp

You can try. How is your exciting analysis of wind turbines coming along?

Here's the letter sent to a local newspaper regarding a planning application for a wind turbine not far from a picturesque Lincolnshire village, much of which, if not all, is subject to preservation orders. I'll precis the first part which questions the basis of how planning applications are determined.

So if West Lindsey planning don't consider residents, who do they consider? Perhaps an increase in council tax revenue, creation of a job or two?

Land-based wind farms are, of course, totally useless and their efficiency is wildly exagerated.

They are built because the developer receives Government subsidies. Without these, the applications for these monstrosities would dry up overnight.

In future we're sure these monstrosities will be regarded as the madness of our age. Will they be dismantled or merely left to corrode away?

We're fed up with being told by these people that "the lights are about to go out".

These people ought to consider a high pressure winter block; the weather is at its coldest, the energy requirement at its peak, and there is absolutely no wind.

These type of winter blocks can go on for months. They are hard to imagine at the moment but we will have a period of this type of weather sooner or later so we'll end up driving all these monstrosities with gas. (N.B. at this point I would have put an emoticon )

As we said before, the madness of our age.

Your response should be copied to the Market Rasen Mail.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Forget Bush and Exxon, that's just deflection on your part.

Don't you think it's interesting, Abe?

Speaking of distraction, have you spotted the difference yet between what your "birther" website said about Caldeira's resignation, and the truth? You seem to be struggling. Why do all the sites you like lie about almost everything? Is it a congenital defect amongst right wing ideologues?

Do you consider Pachuari a fit and proper person for his position?

I think if there is any doubt about that, I'd rely on a proper investigation, rather than the ravings of websites operated by right-wing nutters with peculiar agendas. And no, I can't be arsed to pick through their lies about everything. I find a representative sample of lies (i.e I've found them to be lying every time I've checked) sufficient to discredit them.

If he went, do you expect that the science would suddenly change, and CO2 would cease to be a greenhouse gas?

[Abewest]

njp;59335646]
Speaking of distraction, have you spotted the difference yet between what your "birther" website said about Caldeira's resignation, and the truth? You seem to be struggling.

They embellished the facts. I'll go even further, they lied. I should have checked other sources.

How's that? You see, unlike you I can admit to having made a mistake.

You however... well, just take a look at your own words.

I think if there is any doubt about that, I'd rely on a proper investigation, rather than the ravings of websites operated by right-wing nutters with peculiar agendas.

So don't rely upon them. There's many sources for this. And there's no doubt about it.

But you won't ever concede that, will you?

Not ever.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

What's a climate 'scientist'?

Good question. Should self-taught statisticians and computer muddellers be considered climate 'scientists'? Or is the definition simpler. Believe in cAGW, you're a climate scientist. Express doubt, you're not. 77 out of 79 scientists would probably agree with that definition with a 97% approval rating..

But back to real scientists. Svante Arrhenius, who in many ways was the founder of global warming theory, had a Nobel prize.

Yup, for chemistry. He only dabbled with global waming and had many interests, like Eugenics and ensuring Nobel prizes went to the right people. He also had to correct his original estimates of the greenhouse effect after early sceptics pointed out he'd exagerated them. Climate science seems to have changed little..

Paul Crutzen has a Nobel prize. That's just off the top of my head.

Again for chemistry. Is his ozone hole performing as expected btw?

And then of course there's the matter of the Nobel Peace Prize, which a lot of climate scientists shared for their work...

Yup. Al Gore + the entire IPCC collective now calling themselves Nobel winners for doing science PR. Not quite the same as getting a Nobel for science, but then a lot of climate 'scientists' seem to have bigger egos than brains.

Was there some point to your question?

Yup, not many real scientists in your cult are there? There are of course some hangers on, like Paul Nurse.. but then he's not a climate scientist either. So perhaps not suprising that when he's speaking outside of his speciality, he gets things wrong.

But there were two questions. One you seem to have ignored. Oppenheimer and Trenberth tell us severe storms are wot global warming looks like. Now we've another illustrious science communicator saying the same thing-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/0...g-last-winter/

Now, with the whole country wondering about the sweltering heat, about the wildfires and the derecho and the destruction, people are more than ready to hear that, yes, this is global warming, and yes, something has to be done about it.

Something must be done. Sounds familiar. So given the promise of increasing storms and destruction... Windmills & overhead power lines.. Sensible idea, or just insane waste of money?

Climate scientists seem to be telling us our energy policy is the wrong one for a warming world. Or maybe they're just confused about weather and climate.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Yup, not many real scientists in your cult are there?

Well, apart from every major world scientific institution, no.

Still, your cult leader is Watts; scientific name.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

They embellished the facts. I'll go even further, they lied. I should have checked other sources.

How's that? You see, unlike you I can admit to having made a mistake.

Fantastic, Abe. But why did I have to ask you so many times, before you finally admitted what was completely obvious from my first reply? I felt like Paxman.

And weren't you castigating andkyn a short while ago for his alleged behaviour after I'd admitted a (trivial) mistake? So what other mistake did you have in mind, Abe?

So don't rely upon them. There's many sources for this. And there's no doubt about it.

Here's the thing, Abe. I'm not very interested in Pachuari. I do think it's funny that Bush and ExxonMobil conspired to oust Watson and install Pachuari instead, and that he's now become just another hate figure for the right. But he hasn't done any of the research.

So when the right attack Mann, or Trenberth, or lie about why Caldeira resigned, I take an interest in their lies, because I'm interested in the science that these people do, and exposing ideologues' lies about it amuses me. But I can't get interested in the same way in Pachuari's alleged wrongdoing, so I can't be bothered to see if there's any substance in the claims, and I am most certainly not going to concede that the ideologues are right on this one point, when every single other time I've checked, they've been wrong.

So that's as far as I'm going to go. You can't make me investigate something I'm not interested in. The science would be the same, with or without Pachuari as the IPCC figurehead.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Good question. Should self-taught statisticians and computer muddellers be considered climate 'scientists'?

Are you talking about "Steven Goddard"? Or Anthony Watts? Or Viscount Monckton?

Yup, for chemistry. He only dabbled with global waming

Only dabbled, and yet here we are talking about him, as we have on many previous occasions, over 80 years after his death.

He also had to correct his original estimates of the greenhouse effect after early sceptics pointed out he'd exagerated them. Climate science seems to have changed little..

That's your revisionist history which you are unable to support every single time the subject comes up, which is often. Angstrom was WRONG. Arrhenius revised his own estimate, and it was still higher than today's generally accepted value for climate sensitivity.

Again for chemistry. Is his ozone hole performing as expected btw?

Ah, of course. Ozone depletion is something else that the right wing ideologues disbelieve, along with the harmful effects of smoking, DDT, asbestos etc etc. Basically, any science that implies regulation might be needed is a terrible infringement of Man's inalienable right to stick chemicals wherever he wants, and must therefore be wrong.

Yup, not many real scientists in your cult are there?

Hang on a minute! Are you now redefining a "real scientist" as someone who has won a Nobel Prize in physics or chemistry? That rules out most scientists, in whichever field they are working.

I still don't know why you asked the question. Do you even know yourself?

There aren't any "sceptic" climate scientists with Nobel prizes. Nobel prize winners who aren't climate scientists but have expressed "scepticism" of AGW are outnumbered by those who accept it. You are onto a loser with this game, however you try to play it.

There are of course some hangers on, like Paul Nurse.. but then he's not a climate scientist either. So perhaps not suprising that when he's speaking outside of his speciality, he gets things wrong.

And yet not nearly as wrong as Ivar Giaever, or the idiot James Delingpole, who complained of being "intellectually raped" by him.

[Abewest]

njp;59343658]Fantastic, Abe. But why did I have to ask you so many times, before you finally admitted what was completely obvious from my first reply? I felt like Paxman.

And weren't you castigating andkyn a short while ago for his alleged behaviour after I'd admitted a (trivial) mistake? So what other mistake did you have in mind, Abe?

Again, and unlike andy, I admitted to it. I didn't once deny it, whereas andy denied it from the word go. Bit of a difference. I just strung you along for a bit. As I like to do.

Here's the thing, Abe. I'm not very interested in Pachuari. I do think it's funny that Bush and ExxonMobil conspired to oust Watson and install Pachuari instead, and that he's now become just another hate figure for the right. But he hasn't done any of the research.

So when the right attack Mann, or Trenberth, or lie about why Caldeira resigned, I take an interest in their lies, because I'm interested in the science that these people do, and exposing ideologues' lies about it amuses me. But I can't get interested in the same way in Pachuari's alleged wrongdoing, so I can't be bothered to see if there's any substance in the claims, and I am most certainly not going to concede that the ideologues are right on this one point, when every single other time I've checked, they've been wrong.

So that's as far as I'm going to go. You can't make me investigate something I'm not interested in.The science would be the same, with or without Pachuari as the IPCC figurehead.

That's just about what I've come to expect from you.

It's absolutely amazing that you attack others for what you term their lack of openness and honesty, and yet still you continue to flap and deflect on this man's integrity.

You don't care about him? He's only the Chair of the IPCC, the very man who oversees the climate science bible.

Mind boggling stuff again from you.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=449&Itemid=1

Even New Scientist, which printed the story on which this inverse pyramid of alarm was built, and which has traditionally been in the True Believing mainstream media camp, is demanding answers on how pure speculation could become an IPCC 'finding,' which was then so vigorously defended by Dr. Pachauri. This is not just a minor matter that needs a little clearing up. It is further evidence that the entire IPCC process has been corrupt from the start." Peter Foster in Canada's National Post.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Again, and unlike andy, I admitted to it. I didn't once deny it, whereas andy denied it from the word go. Bit of a difference. I just strung you along for a bit. As I like to do.

My memory was that I was waiting for a decent link, which you were totally unable to provide.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

You don't care about him? He's only the Chair of the IPCC, the very man who oversees the climate science bible.

Well, I'd care if you managed to show that he had somehow managed to subvert the science. You haven't done that. You haven't even come close.

Mind boggling stuff again from you.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=449&Itemid=1

Ah, our old friends, the lying bastards at the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" (contains no actual climate scientists). But your link doesn't work. Google took me to the source, which was some crappy article in the National Post.

This is just the silly glacier claim in WG2, that we've covered many times before. It doesn't get any more exciting just by endless repetition, you know. None of the "sceptics" even noticed it, but that didn't stop them getting hugely excited when the error was corrected. The faux outrage just keeps on coming, doesn't it?

So few errors in the IPCC reports, so many from the "sceptics", but the self-appointed "auditors" (none of whom spotted the glacier error) are never remotely troubled by those, are they?

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by andykn

My memory was that I was waiting for a decent link, which you were totally unable to provide.

Just giving you enough rope. As I said I was.

Njp pre-empted me with the link (the real link, and not that kid-on one he first posted).

But anyway, it's done now. You surely don't want to get this thread closed down too, do you?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Just giving you enough rope. As I said I was.

Njp pre-empted me with the link (the real link, and not that kid-on one he first posted).

But anyway, it's done now. You surely don't want to get this thread closed down too, do you?

You started it. You can just never finish it.

[njp]

Originally Posted by andykn

You started it. You can just never finish it.

I wonder if he's giving you the same remarkably ineffectual rope Prof Cloud keeps giving us? It seems too short and too flimsy to do anything with...

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by andykn

You started it. You can just never finish it.

My recollection is that it was finished.

The link was provided. You did exactly what I said you did. Unless of course you're still denying it after the proof was there in front of you.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

I wonder if he's giving you the same remarkably ineffectual rope Prof Cloud keeps giving us? It seems too short and too flimsy to do anything with...

Strong enough to hang him out to dry. That's all it was intended to do. Although he'll still deny it. It's what he does.

But no big surprise that you're still defending him. Quid pro quo.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

My recollection is that it was finished.

I mean, you brought it up again on this thread.

The link was provided. You did exactly what I said you did. Unless of course you're still denying it after the proof was there in front of you.

Remind me.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by andykn

I mean, you brought it up again on this thread.

Deja-vu. History's repeating itself.

Go and have a think about that. Maybe njp will help you out (again).

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Deja-vu. History's repeating itself.

Go and have a think about that. Maybe njp will help you out (again).

Yes, it was you who brought it up on the last thread too. You didn't do a very good job there either of linking to it.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yes, it was you who brought it up on the last thread too.

Too?

You're surely taking your blind allegiance a bit far this time andy.

It's on this very page, and yet still you refuse to see it?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Too?

Your blind allegiance is getting a bit scary, andy.

It's on this very page, and still you don't see it.

You see, when a sceptic posts a link we shoot it down. When a sceptic doesn't post a link but makes a vague allusion, even they know it won't stand up.

On this occasion I'm not sure where your confusion is. You alluded to me not admitting a mistake but didn't post a link. You also, on another thread made the same link free allusion. "Too". The pulling teeth exercise that was trying to get you to post a clear link got that thread shut down.

You like to style it giving enough rope. I suspect that, to everyone else, it looks like evasion.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by andykn

You see, when a sceptic posts a link we shoot it down. When a sceptic doesn't post a link but makes a vague allusion, even they know it won't stand up.

On this occasion I'm not sure where your confusion is. You alluded to me not admitting a mistake but didn't post a link. You also, on another thread made the same link free allusion. "Too". The pulling teeth exercise that was trying to get you to post a clear link got that thread shut down.

You like to style it giving enough rope. I suspect that, to everyone else, it looks like evasion.

Did a mod tell you that andy? Or are you just making stuff up to suit yourself, as usual.

And is that the royal 'we', or is that the 'njp and I' we?

I said I would post the link that showed it happened like I said it did, but it was nice to see you keep denying it time and time again - as you do. Of course you also like to say that I put you on ignore because you kept proving me wrong. But denying the facts isn't the same as proving someone wrong, except of course in your reality. This sort of blanket denial from you is why I put you on ignore. It's fun to point it out at first, but then it becomes a little bit 'what the hell is this guy smoking?'

Njp then beat me to it on the other thread, and posted the link that proved you did exactly what was claimed (probably to prevent you issuing any further cringeworthy denials). The thread was closed down after that.

And why should I post a link to where you made a mistake on this thread? It's on this very page, FFS. It's not hard to find. Just read the posts. But then, you don't do that, do you? You just jump in with those lead boots on and support njp, no matter what. And that's exactly the kind of behaviour I was referring to on the other thread.

And here we are a day or so later, and you're doing it again. You don't need a link to see where you went wrong on this occasion. You just a need a pair of eyes. Or at the very least, a mind of your own.