Another billboard about bogus climate claims

Nick Stokes says:
February 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm
“1. Smoking causes lung cancer”
Unlike me, I guess you have never known a smoker that did not get lung cancer.
You need the word “can” in there.
Smoking can cause lung cancer.
My mother died of lung cancer. I attribute that to smoking. But, as you say, I have no proof.
The odd thing is that until a smoker dies at an advanced age of something totally unrelated to cancer, say a smoking centenarian dies after falling off a horse, we can’t be sure.
But, for A. G. and B. O., I think they usually say what they believe, like when the latter said our insurance costs would not go up under his plan. He believed it. Did you? Do you now?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/10/cost-of-health-care-plans-to-increase-14-in-2011/

First of all, I don’t believe Obama really “knows” if what he is saying is true or not, he is merely relying on the opinions of others. Further, he doesn’t want be seen as someone who says “I don’t know the answer”. Finally, millions of people are looking at Obama as their spiritual leader, and leaders of that type have to know everything; otherwise he’ll begin to lose the confidence of those who can’t, won’t, or refuse to think for themselves….

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
More failures from Algore (aka Al Gore).

Mobius Loop says:
February 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm
First question to answer is who are Heartland? – A right of centre political thinktank, or essentially a bunch of hired guns paid to forward the interests of multi-national corporations.
Next question – which statement is correct. Both are basing their comments on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that points to climate change as reality that effects us now and will increasingly do so in future. No Scientific Institution of national standing in the world now disagrees with this postion including the last to concede The American Association of Petrolium Geologists (I’m guessing they’re not a bunch of shrill environmentalists). You can check detaiils here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Obama is essentially correct that we are unable to definatively state that any single weather event is caused by climate change.
However Gore is also correct. He is not definatively saying that Sandy was caused by climate change but that in future we can expect more extreme storms like Sandy which is entirely in line with Scientific advice.
————————————————-
Mobius Loop,
I ask you to trust me when I say that you aren’t saying anything anybody here hasn’t heard when you refer to an large body of research that claims AGW is real, or that the position of numerous institutions is in agreement with this theory.
I hope that I’m not telling you anything you don’t know by pointing out that it matters not at all if every scientific publication ever conceived by man and every scientific institution that ever existed hold with utter certainty that AGW is real. Scientific fact is not determined by opinion poll, no matter how overwhelming the numbers polled or how prestigious the institutions involved. There are regular posters here who find various parts of the scientific argument not compelling, or the observed evidence to be wanting. I’m certain they’d be delighted to elaborate if you’d care to lay out what you believe the scientific AGW case to be. I know I’d be glad to, if you’d be specific.
Until then, for my part I’m content to note that it requires no invocation of AGW to explain Sandy, and that by any metric I know of hurricanes have NOT been shown to be increasing in number or intensity since the advent of industrialization and increases in atmospheric CO2.

Neither is correct. Barry’s answer IMPLIES that there IS Gorebull Warming and some of the extreme weather MAY be attributed to it. There isn’t and you can’t.

What’s the difference between Heartland’s billboard and CFACT’s billboard?
Heartland’s billboard only had one scoundrel on it.

Ian Weiss says:
February 9, 2013 at 11:21 am
Of all of the things skeptics can put on billboards – a graph of global temperature, dissenting quotes from highly esteemed scientists, etc. – why on Earth would they put up these quotes from obama and gore?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Because the American public, especially in Chicago, is brain dead and believes every word a politician says, if the politician is a democrat.

For those who voted for Obama beware of the exact phrase used. He states,’…any particular event…’, that leaves him the option of still being able to claim a trend in weather can be pinned on global warming.
Watch these people, they are slippery.

If Al Gore told me that night follows day, I’d be stood on the highest hill at sunset to check for myself.

Mark Bofill says: @ February 9, 2013 at 11:54 am
…..Why is it that the only politicians I think are basically honest come across as complete nut cases (yes I’m referring to Ron Paul)?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because it is an intentional and deliberate method of side-lining the opposition. See WUWT, the medicalization of dissent. Look at what Lewandowsky is doing to skeptics or what was done in the Soviet Union. The International Association on Political Use of Psychiatry
George Santayana wrote in 1905
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Therefore I suggest reading:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Tragedy_Hope_excerpt.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Anglo_American_Estab.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Naked_Capitalist.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Wall_Street_Rise_Hitler.html
(Prof. Carroll Quigely was Bill Clinton’s mentor)
Illustration of the above in action since 1945 with 5 pages of references to support the text.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Insider information:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Budhoo_IMF.html
The long term goals are spelled out by director of the World Trade Organization. Pay attention to the fact this started as a worldwide agreement in the 1930’s and Lamy’s repeated emphasis of ‘legitimacy’ or the buy-in of the people to be ruled.
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8216
Lamy, Clinton and Blair all teach at the London School of Economics. (Founded by the Fabian Society) Anthony Giddens, Director of the London School of Economics came up with The Third Way
Last checkout these LSE graduates, Fabians and Eugenicists.
(see Pointman’s essay )
Francis Galton
Beatrice Webb
Sydney Webb
H.G. Wells
“The real George Bernard Shaw”
Margaret Mead
Margaret Sanger
Julian Huxley
John Maynard Keynes
John Dewey see AMERICAN FABIANISM and Dumbing Down America
It is fitting to end with another 1905 George Santayana quote.
“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”

Chris G says:
February 9, 2013 at 11:47 am
….In this case, both are correct. The increasing level of energy in the system is creating more frequent unusual weather events…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And where is your PROOF?
This is from Chris Landsea a world expert on Hurricanes, IPCC author and believer in Global Warming. However he is also an honest scientist with integrity.

What is Wrong with Embellishing Science?
Yesterday, before heading back to the National Hurricane Center to help deal with Sandy, Chris Landsea gave a great talk here at CU on hurricanes and climate change….he explained that he has no doubts that humans affect the climate system through the emission of greenhouse gases,…. Chris argued that any such influence is expected to be small today, almost certainly undetectable, and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists. He concluded that hurricanes should not be the “poster” representing a human influence on climate.
After his talk someone in the audience asked him what is wrong with making a connection between hurricanes and climate change if it gives the general public reason for concern about climate change. Chris responded that asserting such a connection can be easily shown to be incorrect and thus risks some of the trust that the public has in scientists to play things straight….

The infighting:
Climategate e-mail Correspondence with Chris Landsea

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
……The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small….

Some ‘scientist’ have made it clear that “to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
From Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University. Schneider was a coming ice age proponent in the 1970s
~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~
In other words we are being intentionally LIED TO for political reasons.
Heck the IPCC was never about the climate in the first place. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to scare humans. Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. I do not care if you are socialist, capitalist or any other flavor, the fact that the UN, a collection of dictators is holding conferences on “Global Governance” and also putting together something like the IPCC and the Earth Summits to convince us into handing THEM control is what is REALLY SCARY.
The IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

Is it politically incorrect to give Obama any credit at WUWT? I suspect that Anthony knew very well from the outset the result of his poll. By giving his mainly Republican readers the option to choose “neither” to the rather vague question “who[m!] do you believe?” he gave them the cop-out answer to say that politicians are not to be believed by definition, hence “neither”. If the question would have been phrased “whose statement was the most believable?” 99% of his readers would have been forced to agree with Obama. Wouldn’t that be hilarious?
ps. I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the right wing which would make me (here in Europe) essentially a Democrate. Only the extreme right is Europe would have any affinity for the Republicans.

it has not occurred to anyone here the folly of those playing with ha(a)rps? in that case both assertions would be correct. yes?

it was no bogus to be compared with some massmurderer on the billboard owned bij the Heartland Institute;

we cannot vote that both (Gore and Obama) are right,
cfact, if you make that choicepossible, I will vote

President Zero’s actions speak far louder than any brief truism. Deception/diversion as usual.

The people who post here are the greatest !
When I first looked at this I said it is a trick like
“have you stopped beating you wife”.
The posts here should be required reading before voting.
Thank you Anthony !
Alfred

Sometimes, the brazenness with which “skeptics” forge quotes and lie is still stunning to me. Take this alleged quote by Stephen Schneider, which is provided here by Gail Combs on February 10, 2013 at 3:56 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492
“~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.~”
which is commented by Gail Combs as alleged evidence for the accusation that Stephen Schneider promoted to be untruthful for non-scientific motives:

In other words we are being intentionally LIED TO for political reasons.

However, the above quote is a forged version, from which essential parts that are important for the message have been deliberately stripped. This is the original statement by Stephen Schneider:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)
With the full quote it becomes clear that Stephen Schneider did not promote lying. Instead, he addressed the difficulty one has as a scientist and human being to convey results from scientific research, which may have societal consequences, in an effective way to the public through the media, which do not provide much space for a nuanced argument. He speaks about a “double ethical bind”, and he makes clear that his desire is to be both effective and honest. This quote demonstrates that Stephen Schneider was thinking about such problems. It’s a good thing to be reflective about these kind of problems, not a bad thing.
The brazenness is particularly stunning in this case, since the original quote can actually be found under the link that is provided by Gail Combs. Nevertheless, a distorted version is given here.
It is not Stephen Schneider who promoted that climate scientists should be lying. Instead, it’s fake skeptics who are lying when they use distorted quotes to defame climate scientists and make libelous accusations about them. Forged versions of the Stephen Schneider quote with the according misrepresentation of its content can be found all over the “skeptic” blogosphere. What does this say about the honesty of such “skeptics” in general?

Looking at the website and listening to soundbites provided at CFACT.org, I have come to the conclusion that those people are not in the business of accurately reporting about science. They are not friends of truth and facts. It’s apparently politically and ideologically motivated Agit-Prop of a lobby organization.
REPLY: Sorta like Fenton Communications and RealClimate. – Anthony

Jan Perlwitz, what scary scenarios do YOU come up with to get loads of media coverage?
BTW, ever heard of the Rule Of Holes?

Chris, Dirk, and John, this is so funny: I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the moderate (Dutch) left, which would make me in the USA essentially a Communist. BTW, I voted neither.

Perlwitz is trying to defend the indefensible: Schneider’s tacit permission to the alarmist crowd to lie when they do not have the facts on their side. From his comment, I see that Perlwitz has taken Schneider’s advice:

… I have come to the conclusion that those people are not in the business of accurately reporting about science. They are not friends of truth and facts. It’s apparently politically and ideologically motivated Agit-Prop of a lobby organization.

As I’ve frequently pointed out, if it were not for psychological projection, Perlwitz wouldn’t have much to say. Here, Perlwitz is accusing a skeptical organization of doing exactly what RealClimate, SkS, and similar alarmist blogs do: lie to thew public, as Schneider advised.

Mindert Eiting says:
February 10, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Chris, Dirk, and John, this is so funny: I am a global warming sceptic and politically from the moderate (Dutch) left, which would make me in the USA essentially a Communist. ”
The definition of communist is internationally agreed upon I think. (You want a global socialist state with the expropriation of all means of production; later (magically) the socialist state dissolves and communism without any government takes its place.) If you think that that makes sense then you’re a communist, otherwise not.
It’s the definition of conservatism in Germany that is flakey – the CDU is indistinguishable from the Green party.

Mark Bofill on February 10, 2013 at 11:25 am in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221705
openly endorses forging quotes so that “skeptics” can reinterpret them to give them a meaning “skeptics” would like to give them:

Far from obscuring the matter, Gail’s revision clarified the main points. Clearly in your case it needs to be simplified further, since apparently you’re getting confused by the supporting details.

This is a seldom open admission that it was OK to forge quotes for propaganda purposes, coming from a fake skeptic.
And of course, richardscourtney on February 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221766
defends the providing of a forged quote, from which the context was stripped, and he supports the malicious reinterpretation of what the quote said, although the full quote including the stripped parts make clear that the quotes says actually something else.

He then posted the same quote with a few additional sentences which – in fact – clarified that the point made by Gail Combs was correct.

Then he even defends the forging of quotes with an absurd analogy:

So, I suppose in the world of Perlw1tz a $10 bill is a forgery when a small piece of its corner is missing and it is a lie to say it is worth $10 when put into a bank.

As if the full context of a statement didn’t matter for the understanding of quote fragments.
No surprise here. Mr. Courtney is a “skeptic” activist who is actively making propaganda against research and their results in climate science, and he tries to sabotage research in climate science through political channels. One could suspect the motivation for his doing comes from his professional connections to the coal industry.

Jan P Perlwitz says:
February 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm
“Ah, is this the reason why you believe that thousands of climate scientists all over the world are lying, when they accept the paradigm of anthropogenically caused climate change and global warming in their publications or public statements, ”
The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.

Mark Bofill wrote on February 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221851

Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate.

1. I do not believe you that.
2. You defended the forging of a quote as a legitimate “revision” of a statement. I am not going to honor such a propositon by engaging in a dialogue with you.
There are enough of the “skeptic” crowd here who are similar minded to you. Aren’t you satisfied when they give you confirmation?

Mark Bofill wrote on February 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221980

Tell me, seriously this time. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying.

I understand what Stephen Schneider said. He talked about an ethical dilemma, which one can face as a scientist. On one hand, to be committed to the highest scientific standards, on the other hand to convey results of research with important societal consequences to the public in an effective way, given the working of the media as they are. Stephen Schneider was reflecting about this. It is a virtue to be aware about these problems. He did not say scientists should be lying. On the contrary, he expressed his desire to be both effective and honest.
If you think I was dumb to think that is the correct interpretation, so be it, since it is was I think. It’s not an argument I don’t believe.
Gail Comb presented a forged version of the statement, which significantly distorted its meaning.
What do you propose what would be a valid criterion what interpretation of the statement is the correct one? We don’t need to ask Stephen Schneider. Even if he was still alive we already know what he said about it. And the “skeptic” crowd clearly dismisses what he said about it right away, since the preconception among “skeptics” is he was lying like most climate scientists allegedly were, anyway. So, what else?

richardcourtney says:
“The assertions of Jan P Perlw1tz get progressively more bizarre with each post he makes.”
And Mark Bofill says:
“…the conversation continues to deteriorate…
Being unable to address the substance of my post in any way shape or form, this pathetic troll comes back with yet another unfounded distortion.
Jan, you’re being boring. Here I was looking forward to an interesting debate. Couldn’t you step up your game a bit? My kids argue a better case than you for Pete’s sake…. I mocked you because you deserved it, for putting forward a ridiculous argument, but it’s not credible that you hold a PhD and that you’re really unable to understand what Schneider was saying… Okay, but isn’t it strange that he’s making such a feeble argument? He comes in here, looking to pick a fight using a laughable argument against Gail, and quickly gets sidetracked into arguing against peripheral details in people’s rebuttals.”
And DirkH says:
“The THEORY of CO2AGW has been promoted to a PARADIGM now? You’re delusional.”
And Code Tech says:
“Perlwitz, why did you misquote me, then agree with what I actually said? That didn’t make sense…”
Nobody agrees with Perlwitz. I can’t believe that he misunderstands either Schneider’s statement so completely. He has completely reversed Schneider’s meaning. Can he really be that delusional?
I doubt it. I think Perlwitz has repeated his unsupportable assertions so often that he cannot renege on them now without forfeiting credibility — which would make him ineffective. Therefore, Perlwitz owns his alarmist catastrophic AGW position. He would rather make things up, than refute what he has repeatedly asserted.
It is that same choice between being honest, or being effective. Perlwitz can be honest, or he can be effective. He cannot be both. Perlwitz obviously believes that his false assertions are effective enough to jettison honesty. He has made the choice offered by Stephen Schneider. Now we know what that choice is.

john robertson wrote on February 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222030

The context of Schneider’s statement is well explained by his behaviour from the date of said quote to his death.
Ample evidence to me, that Jan is blowing smoke.
Course he could believe it, as a common trait of serial liars, is believing their own BS.
Lies being difficult to keep track of, and hard to reference.
Truth seems to work so much more reliably over time.

So, show me what the truth was, which you allege. This should be easy for you then. Please, give me specifics about the behavior of Stephen Schneider after the interview, which confirm the, in my opinion malicious interpretation of his statement, according to which he promoted that scientists should be lying. Specifics that are actually based on verifiable evidence, not just copy-paste of assertions from some fake skeptic blogs.

richardscourtney wrote on February 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221947
a lot of bla bla, and he also claims:

Clearly, Ms Combs was honest and correct in what she wrote and she did NOT forge anything.

The original quote by Stephen Schneider was:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(J. Schell, Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. cited after Stephen H. Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf)
Gail Combs presented following alleged quote instead:
~ On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. ~”
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492)
The original quote has been clearly and deliberately changed here. It is not even marked where parts of the original quote have been cut out.
But Mr. Courtney claims this was “honest and correct” doing.
The irony is that “skeptics” do here exactly with the quote by Stephen Schneider, and Mr. Courtney and likes defend such doing, of what they accuse Stephen Schneider to allegedly have done.

richardscourtney wrote in February 11, 2013 at 2:24 am wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222145
Some funny things.
You are hilarious, Mr. Courtney. Trying to declare a quote manipulation, which is ones more documented here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222096
to be none. It’s all fine and good, nothing wrong with it, according to you, to re-arrange the words of someone else’s quote, to present the re-arranged words as the original quote and attribute the changed meaning to the original author of the quote. And the one who calls such quote manipulation what it actually is, is supposed to be the “liar”. In your little delusional “skeptic” fantasy world.
You should try such an approach when you finally defend your PdD thesis, in which you ultimately refute global warming, using your revolutionary analysis method called “eyeballing”. Have you started with writing your thesis already? Once you have finished them, and get it through the commission, even with manipulated quotes, about which you think that’s nothing to worry about, then you even can call yourself legitimately “Dr. Courtney”.
Well, it’s all documented in this thread here now. How an original quote by Stephen Schneider is being manipulated by fake skeptics by erasing parts of the quote without marking it and re-arranging the remaining parts, so that they can give the statement the meaning they want it to have. And how such doing is defended by Mr. Courtney and by others here as a totally legitimate approach. You have exposed yourself, Mr. Courtney. And it is documented now.
I hope people get to see this, before they deal with Mr. Courtney professionally. If they have to rely on what Mr. Courtney writes, they should know what he thinks about quote manipulation.
Well, I guess Mr. Courtney is going to send now another recursive reply, in which he calls me once more a liar, because I call malicious quote manipulation what it is. It doesn’t change a thing.