It is often said that the epitome of “chutzpah” is the boy who kills both his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. Your complaints here of “personal abuse” has made that example of chutzpah look mild by comparison.

REPLY: OK that’s an end to this interpersonal argument – for both of you – thread closed – Anthony

I have been wrongly accused of using “invective” and, since nobody has corrected that accusation, I shall use some invective.

I think the genocidal louts publishing here are a disgrace to the human race.

There, that is an honest statement of my view and it is “invective”.
Satisfied now?

I directly addressed the hypocrisy of Joel Shore’s claim that effects of culling the poor by means of energy deprivation could be overcome by “education and birth control” when I explained why China’s ‘One-Child’ policy had failed. So, oakgeo I do not need to “apologise” for anything.

Knowing they have lost the argument, the genocidal louts are now trying to defame me because I explained what their disingenuous claims really mean for the most disadvantaged in the world.

The genocidal louts are shouting about my “credentials” because they know their assertions have been demonstrated to be evil, and they are attempting to deflect attention away from that. But my “credentials” have no relevance of any kind to this. I merely pointed out facts of the repercussions of constraining the use of fossil fuels. And I made no statements concerning my “credentials”. Claims concerning my “credentials” are a ‘red herring’.

I have learned the hard way – and repeatedly – how these people operate. They make a false assertion about a person. If that assertion is refuted then they make another false assertion. But each false assertion gives some on-lookers the idea that ‘there is no smoke without fire’.

So, I refuse to defend myself against these false attacks that have no relevance of any kind to the truth of what I have written here. However, there may be some here who want to know something about me, and I am willing to point them to information that is in the public domain on pages 25 and 26 of the item at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
The paragraphs on page 26 (prior to my full contact details) explain why I care to oppose evil.

That is my final word in reply to the personal abuse of me.

And the item at the url explains why windpower is not a useful alternative to use of nuclear power and fossil fuels for power generation.

Richard

My apologies if I misrepresented what you said. I had quickly read through all the threads and then wrote essentially from memory. I missed Mr. Courtney’s ridiculous “advocate” comment; you clearly were advocating education, not genocide. He should apologize. As for whether he is a “Dr.” or not, he should own up. Well Mr. Courtney, are you in fact you?

I dismiss his “starvation” and “culling” points as strawman arguments. Having said that, I think that “Provision of affluence” is bang on. I don’t see how trying to educate people in the third world to reduce their numbers can be effective when it runs counter to their culture (i.e. family size, survival of the elderly, family name, etc.), government indifference, 1st world envy/contempt, fear of change, religious dictates and other issues that I certainly have missed. These issues are immediate and visceral, and impossible to compare to some ill-defined future global crisis that people neither understand nor consider important. Its a hard sell and there are no other options before us except coercion or fiat. If they do not buy what we are selling, CO2 will continue to rise.

I was just annoyed with the escalating invective of the three posters’ intertwined posts. For the record, there is no Dr. before my name.

Mr. Clarke, get off the “who is Richard Courtney” line. You won’t discuss things with someone who is not your equal. We get it. If his credentials are more important than his arguments, then maybe you should just ignore him or go away.

I think this is an extreme misrepresentation of what Phil Clarke has been after. The question is not whether Courtney’s credentials are sufficient to be his “equal”. Rather, the question is whether Courtney has misrepresented his credentials in these petitions…i.e., it is an issue of honesty and integrity. I personally don’t know what the answer is because the very same person who labeled me an “advocate of genocide” somehow finds it to be “lies and smears” when Phil Clarke asks him about this and refuses to just answer the question.

Mr. Shore, can you post a comment without invoking “big oil”, “evil coal” or nefarious “right wing” institutes? Its another tired allusion to the “follow the money” distraction, and we all know the real money is on the green side anyways.

In fact, if you look at my posts in this thread, you will see:

(1) None of them mentioned “Big Oil”. And, in fact, the only real thing that I can currently say about Big Oil is that even the most recalcitrant of the oil companies, ExxonMobil, now at least publicly accepts the science and, in fact, touts the fact that two of its scientists were involved in the IPCC reports that led to the Nobel Peace Prize ( http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx ).

(2) I only mentioned the coal industry after Richard Courtney, who is factually from that industry, embarked on his despicable campaign of labeling myself and anyone who supports any regulations regarding CO2 emissions as “advocates of genocide”.

(3) I only mentioned the “right wing” stuff in response to the lame claim by Smokey that STATS was somehow a left-wing organization who had launched a “push poll”. He was the one who was trying to distract us with ad hominem attacks because he didn’t like the poll results. I was merely pointing out that it was not because of their apparent leanings, but despite their apparent leanings, that the STATS poll produced the results that it did.

I appreciate you condemning Richard Courtney for what he has said in this thread but I think your similar condemnations of Phil Clarke and myself is at best like treating murder and jaywalking as similar crimes.

Mr. Courtney, your “culling” point, and later expansion of it, were ridiculous; in fact I found them as offensive as Hansen’s “death train” remarks. Do you really think that the posters you spar with are on par with history’s sociopaths and megalomaniacs?

Mr. Clarke, get off the “who is Richard Courtney” line. You won’t discuss things with someone who is not your equal. We get it. If his credentials are more important than his arguments, then maybe you should just ignore him or go away.

Mr. Shore, can you post a comment without invoking “big oil”, “evil coal” or nefarious “right wing” institutes? Its another tired allusion to the “follow the money” distraction, and we all know the real money is on the green side anyways.

I must get my fingers exorcised. Dang spell checkers! I need a grammar checker too.

That makes sense – I always thought that you were trying to call yourself “Bat2Back”…

I see that credentials don’t prevent people from being seriously wrong nor does the lack of them prevent people from being right.

So to be fair, I think Joel needs to answer first, since he was asked first.

The question that Phil Clarke raised with Richard Courtney is whether he has correctly presented his academic credentials.

Since I have never presented to you where I work, there is no way that I could have incorrectly presented them. And, my credentials as a physicist are not hard to find through google and indeed a few people have said that they have googled me and seen some of the papers that I’ve published and what-not.

No I do not. In general, arguments should be assessed on their merits, regardless of whom is advancing them, with the caveat that those from people with demonstrably relevant experience and expertise deserve special consideration, Joel’s workplace is an irrelavance.

Online, the right to anonymity is useful and occassionally necessary; there was a poster on Climate Audit [lorax] recently presenting some arguments unpopular with the McIntyre fanboys. One of them figured out his offline identity and apparently made some threatening remarks ….

But I fear Richard has broken cover. He has endorsed various [coal industry friendly] position statements, and in doing so has represented himself as a ‘Dr; and a ‘PhD’, implying that he has undertaken the original research required to earn the award of this degree.

All I want to know is the title of his PhD thesis, and the name of the awarding body. Information that anyone genuinely prefixing their name with ‘Dr’ or suffixing it with ‘PhD’ would be willing and able to furnish with a minimum of fuss.

Unless, of course, the awarding of the degree never happened. And why on Earth would I spend my precious time arguing with a fantasist?

Don’t you think questions like yours should apply equally to everyone? For example, I’ve asked Joel Shore where he works.

So to be fair, I think Joel needs to answer first, since he was asked first.

Richard – it wasn’t a lie. It wasn’t a smear. It was a simple question. Here it is again …

1. Are you the same Richard S Courtney who appears on the Cato Institute Open Letter as Richard S Courtney PhD, are you the Dr Richard S Courtney who signed this open letter to Paul Martin? Are you the Richard S Courtney who self-described himself as

‘Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his
academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a
BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath).’

2. Have you, in fact, been awarded the academic degree of Doctor of Philosphy? If so, what was the title of your thesis and what was the awarding body?

Quite happy to engage with your wider arguments once we’ve cleared up this little confusion. I am quite certain that you are not somebody who would devalue the currency of academic qualifications by claimimg a degree which you had not actually earned, in fact I would refuse to engage to debate with such a charlatan, so I look forward to your clearing this little matter up.

regards,

Phil.

For the record, as a life APS member I fully support the current statement of the APS council, as it accurately mirrors the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report.