Put Gore in the dock February 24, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 24 February, 2010
A second lie appears on Bolt’s blog. This time, Bolt isn’t the one making the untrue statement:
In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,”
But, Bolt clearly agrees with US Senator James Inhofe given that, in relation to the statement, he agrees that:
Al Gore must indeed be held to account
But, Bolt only recently made clear in a column that, in relation to Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth:
- Stuart Dimmock, father of two and school governor, asked England’s High Court to stop education authorities from giving Gore’s film to schools as a teaching aid, since it was political indoctrination and not the mere teaching of science…
- True, Justice Michael Burton did technically rule in Gore’s favour by letting the film be sent out, albeit with advice to teachers on its many errors…
And then Bolt concedes the “many errors” actually numbered nine.
That’s nine “errors” in a film that lasts 94 minutes?
So, the result of the court case was that the film was not withdrawn, which it surely would have been had every assertion been rebutted or, indeed, had it even contained what could objectively be described as a “significant” number of errors.
Moscow buried in the snows that were meant to vanish February 23, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 24 February, 2010
I haven’t yet encountered an AGW post where Bolt actually provides a headline that is an outright lie – until now. Bolt claims to have “studied” the climate science. Accepting that he has done so to even a small degree therefore means that this is undoubtedly a purposely made lie.
Has a climate scientist somewhere…anywhere said Moscow’s snow or snow in general would “vanish”.
Let’s remind ourselves – yes, even those that have “studied” the climate science – what the IPCC has said in relation to snowfall (amount and coverage):
In general, snow amount and snow coverage decreases in the NH (Supplementary Material, Figure S10.1). However, in a few regions (e.g., Siberia), snow amount is projected to increase. This is attributed to the increase in precipitation (snowfall) from autumn to winter (Meleshko et al., 2004; Hosaka et al., 2005).
So, not only does it not say snow will vanish – as Bolt well knows – but it does say that there are areas where snowfall can actually increase.
And then, via Watts:
At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.
Follow the link and we see how Watts frames this story (my emphasis):
In other words, conduct investigations into modern global warming in a way that the Met Office bureaucrats hope will end the mammoth controversy over world temperature data they collected that has been stirred up by their secretive and erratic ways.
The “mammoth controversy” that Watts is talking about relates to Watts’ dismally failing efforts to try to discredit the climate surface temperature record that he claims is due to poorly sited or exposed weather stations.
Unfortunately, as is often the case when one creates conspiracy theories to explain one’s own irrational beliefs, Watts’ attempts and claims are already being shown to be completely unfounded:
In relation to Watts’ “work” in particular see SkepticalScience here.
In relation to the surface temperature data and its validity see SkepticalScience here.
Paying to play at saving the world February 4, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie.
How much of our money is Kevin Rudd splashing out to bribe foreigners into signing a useless deal to stop a warming that actually halted eight years ago?
BRITISH Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he has won Kevin Rudd’s backing for a bold proposal to create a $122 billion-a-year climate change fund for poorer countries, in the hope of breaking the deadlock threatening a new global agreement to fight climate change.
And that’s not including the billions he’ll waste on our own emissions trading scheme, or the billions we’ll then lose in productivity and sales.
Here, Bolt actually makes the claim that global warming has “halted eight years ago”. On what scientific authority does Bolt presume to make such a blatantly deceptive statement?
What economic study does Bolt use to back his claims regarding the ETS? None.
Warming millions good, sceptics’ thousands bad February 4, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie.
But here is the most astonishing thing about Alberici’s report. Not only is the money ExxonMobil gives an insigificant fraction of the billions handed out to global warming scientists and spruikers, but it’s also a fraction of the money that Ward’s own Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE got from a global warming evangelist to preach the doomsday gospel:
Jeremy Grantham has given British universities £24m in a bid to save the planet… The British financier, who founded the Boston-based investment fund GMO, which has £55 billion under its management, gave the money to the London School of Economics (LSE) to fund an institute for researching the economics of climate change. A similar amount went to Imperial College London to study climate science.
Altogether, the £24m is one of the largest donations ever made to climate research… So why did Yorkshire-born Grantham do it?
“Because climate change is turning into the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. I wanted to invest my money in places where it might actually help tackle that problem,” said the financier last week…
Which makes Ward a monumental hypocrite.He complains that a few hundred thousand dollars from Big Oil corrupts debate, but says nothing about the more than $20 million his own university gets from Big Warming.
ExxonMobil has donated only $K to climate change scepticism? Where on earth could Andrew Bolt have come up with that $ figure from to support his claim?