Note to KXL protestors and Lord Deben, just substitute a couple of K’s and ‘your journey towards the dark side will be complete’

Paging Lord Deben

I had debated with myself a couple of days as to whether or not to cover this particular bit of ugliness, after it first being brought to my attention by Bishop Hill. But then, Lord Deben of the UK made this observation:

Deben_tweet_Capture

I challenge Lord Deben to find examples of climate skeptics doing anything remotely close to this sort of ugliness that is much like of the tactics of the Klu Klux Klan – showing up at somebody’s house with mask covered faces, torches, and a threat: 

micats-vigil-web

Source:
‘The People’ Confront Enbridge Executive In Solidarity With MI CATS 3

http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/enbridge-home-demo/

(update: their website is no longer serving that page, so here it is as a PDF Tar Sands Blockade – Enbridge )

Enbridge_KXL_Capture

One of these days, they’ll show up at the wrong house, like their comrades did with the wrong petrol station, and the person inside won’t be as tolerant as Mr. Maki was, and that won’t be pretty:

In case Lord Deben doesn’t know, this “tar sands blockade” is an organization that is part of Bill McKibben’s 350.org and their mission to stop Keystone XL due to their concerns about the supposed effect on the climate.

(Update: Amazingly, McKibben supported this action, see screencap below)

BillMckibbenenbridge

And, perhaps Lord Deben doesn’t recall this example of ugliness from like minded people in the UK on climate, who decided that blowing up school children would be a great way to get the message of climate obedience and compliance across:

It was so bad, 10:10 tried to disappear it, but they were unsuccessful.

And, maybe Lord Deben hasn’t seen this:

Lefty Feud Over Keystone Worsens, Ed Schultz Telling Enviros to ‘Go to Hell’

It seems even the left leaning media is realizing the KXL people are going off the rails.

I challenge Lord Deben to find similar examples from climate skeptics. I’ll even given you a guest essay here to highlight it if you like.

Reference:

‘your journey towards the dark side will be complete’ with apologies to “Emperor Palpatine”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness. Bookmark the permalink.

205 Responses to Note to KXL protestors and Lord Deben, just substitute a couple of K’s and ‘your journey towards the dark side will be complete’

  1. James Ard says:

    I admit I might have been a little personally unpleasant with Gene Karpinsky of the League of Conservation Voters on cspan this morning. But how could you not be?

  2. Kaboom says:

    Can’t really fully comment until I understand what a “climate naysayer” is. Probably another figment of imagination for warmers to push over, strawman-style.

  3. I’ve found ‘sceptics’ to be reasonably open minded if vigorous in expressing their viewpoints whereas ‘believers’ become threatening and abusive at the presentation of any level of disagreement.

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    In politics it’s best to ask what Churchill would do rather than what Jesus or Buddha would do based on the advice of passivists.

  5. Gareth Phillips says:

    To be honest as a fairly prolific blogger on all shades of the climate debate, I find aggressive and rude people on all sides of the issue. I suspect a persons attitude on a given subject owes more to their own personality than the subject in hand, and such people tend to express unresolved anger through the medium of the debate. It could be a discussion regarding the colour of cats, the end result would be the same people being rude, aggressive and intimidating.

  6. ES says:

    Enbridge is not behind the KXL, its TransCanada.
    Your link is not working:
    http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/enbridge-home-demo/

    REPLY: Hmmm, either their website is on the fritz, or they disappeared it, fortunately I have a copy and will update the post with a link to it. – Anthony

  7. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Phillips:

    At February 9, 2014 at 11:23 am you write

    To be honest as a fairly prolific blogger on all shades of the climate debate, I find aggressive and rude people on all sides of the issue. I suspect a persons attitude on a given subject owes more to their own personality than the subject in hand, and such people tend to express unresolved anger through the medium of the debate. It could be a discussion regarding the colour of cats, the end result would be the same people being rude, aggressive and intimidating.

    I can easily accept that is your experience given the nature and purpose of your posts.

    Indeed, I think it likely that the response you say you obtain is universal when people discover you are a shill employed to spread disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Carbon Trading industry. People may want to see this link which – by the way – has a nice photo of you
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    Richard

  8. nigelf says:

    Stephen Wilde, it’s their inner despot coming out into the open. We’re too stupid or bullheaded to see the truth so they have to take control by any means and force it down our throats for the sake of all of us.
    Remember:
    “If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier

  9. Gunga Din says:

    There may be more “naysayers” on the skeptic side but at least there aren’t as many idiots.

  10. onlyme says:

    The remark that started ‘Lord’ Deben off is found at https://twitter.com/lorddeben/status/432571803425587201 in which he calls #Anthropogenic #GlobalWarming sceptics ‘deniers/dismissers’ the holocaust referencing Godwins’ law invoking term used by so many alarm spreading followers of #IPCC dogma. This was followed by the remark Antony responded to at https://twitter.com/lorddeben/status/432575875666968577 in which he now labels #CAGW sceptics dissenters.

    The use of the epithet #Denier has been habitual and continual with Deben, and to me is not the kind of behavior that is fitting on part of someone who is supposed to be part of the nobility. There is nothing whatever noble about such speech, and when he is called out on this practice of his, his response is as detailed above, to blame sceptics for attacking, even though he is the first to hurl the slurs.

    I also take exception to his classification of sceptics on the matter of anthropogenic global warming as dismissers, we do not dismiss the evidence but the interpretations and question the models which to date show limited skill at prediction beyond 5 to 10 days.

  11. Gunga Din says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/deben_tweet_capture.png?w=640
    ================================================================
    He left out lawsuits.
    Oh, wait a minute. That would be …..

  12. glenndc says:

    Mr. Philips, could you please direct me to a list of the ‘skeptic’ bloggers and their specific posts that disturbed you? As a prolix reader of the debate, I have seen very little that would be outside the pale in any reasonably vigorous and well coached forensics class at the HS level, and find myself surprised by your statement. Much obliged.

  13. john robertson says:

    I too wonder what a naysayer might be.
    Those protesters are brave ; to the point of suicidal insanity.
    If faced with ideological zombies, carrying burning torches and wearing masks, outside my home after dark…I would fear for the safety of my family and property, rightly so.
    And they do this in Texas…
    As for Lord Deben or whatever he calls himself, the projection from cult members has been 100% accurate so far.
    What he accuses, is what he is.

  14. Pachygrapsus says:

    I’ve see far more unpleasantness from the left wing greens that I’ve ever seen from conservative who oppose them, but it’s important to look at what is really happening. Those of us who work for a living and enjoy a nice quality of life have no wish to argue with anyone. The UN and their sycophants in the Democratic Party in the US want to take our money, restrict our ability to travel, and damage our economy. They’ll do this while pretending to possess the moral high ground, while their leadership lives in lavish homes a travels by private jet. I’m supposed to let Al Gore, Darryl Hannah, Alec Baldwin and George Soros tell me to use less fossil fuel?

    They threaten my employment, my family and my country from their Ivory Towers. That, in itself, far exceeds any verbal unpleasantness I might direct their way, but it much worse than that. They label me “anti-science” because I insist on empirical evidence, a “denier” because I see confirmation bias in their post hoc analysis, and a “planet killer” because I am competent and productive. It would be impossible to find a way to transport 20,000 of my fellow skeptics to Denmark or the South Pacific because there is no funding for such a venture, but every year that number of climate activists, politicians, journalists and their pet scientists find a way to travel together to far flung corners of the globe. While there they conspire to transfer my wealth to my government and then have it sent to third-world countries that are openly hostile to my way of life. They accuse me of being a shill of oil companies, while the truth is that I’m not even a stockholder and certainly not paid to promote them. If I were, I’d be a lot more likely to visit some of the places that climate activists seem to enjoy.

    Sorry for the rant, but when someone from the left asks why we aren’t especially polite when we engage them, I’m tempted to ask if they’ve ever been robbed. How is the victim of such a crime expected to behave?

  15. MJ says:

    Don’t forget to read the tweets of Michael E. Mann.

  16. dbstealey says:

    If being a ‘naysayer’ means not swallowing pseudo-science, anti-science, or evidence-free assertions, then I guess I’m a naysayer.

    But being part of the 10-10 crowd, or 350.org is a long way from simply holding their feet to the fire, by asking them for actual evidence. Because so far, there is no scientific evidence that I can find to support the alarmist crowd’s belief in runaway global warming or climate catastrophe. There is really no such evidence at all.

    If they post actual evidence, I will sit up straight and pay close attention. If they produce verifiable scientific evidence, I will change my mind. But so far, all I see are assertions of doom ‘n’ gloom.

    That’s not good enough. So I guess I’m a naysayer.

  17. LC Bennett says:

    I watched ‘The People’ video. The restraint and reasoned response of Mr.Maki was admirable. He didn’t seem concerned about being confronted by a masked mob turning up on his doorstep at night. Remarkable. In contrast, ‘The People’ (how ridiculous and presumptuous is that title btw) were full of emotion, easily refuted ‘facts’ and insults. Bullying and bloviating is such a poor substitute for rational arguments.

    By the voices, it sounded like a bunch of students and one older male leader. I’m going to go out on a pretty sturdy limb and assume ‘The People’ are not physical science or business majors. Journalism or some sort of victim studies majors, perhaps. No offense to the sane holders of such degrees, of course. .

  18. Katabasis says:

    I’ve had quite a few face to face arguments with alarmists over the last couple of years and they’re certainly not above using weight of numbers or shouting to try to intimidate.

    The worst instances though have been when one of them has made some ridiculous hysterical contention or other and I’ve laughed at them. That seems to be what really gets their back up and the implied violence comes shortly afterwards – I hate the poor, I hate the environment, I’m doing the bidding of big oil/ big tobacco etc. etc ad nauseum

  19. Dave in Canmore says:

    Gareth Phillips gets paid for his opinions?
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    Gareth can you confirm if this is you?

    PS it won’t lower my assement of the quality of your observations.

  20. albertalad says:

    If you live and work in the oil sands like I do, and I never fail to mention the fact, or even live in Alberta, Canada then there are not enough vile names in a thousand articles like I have been called, naked hatred so vile and ugly few, if any here, have any idea what hatred really means, visits from washed up Hollywood stars and washed up rock stars that boggle the mind with their stunning lack of knowledge, education, or common sense, newspaper articles bordering on hate and misinformation even a child would question, of course newspaper talk-back sections where vile names and threats are as common as breathing on a daily basis. My province is under constant attack, my city is under constant assault from all over the world, the entire oil based industry is under daily attack up to and including the US White House, 10 Downing street, the EU governing body – this then is life here in oil sands country. If you live and work here, or in Alberta itself, then this is very normal every single day of our lives. Funded most often by US so called liberal groups including up to the buying or renting of Indian chiefs along with their entire bands – this is the brutal world I cannot speak about using their own words, if I used their own words, this post would be refused by the mods on this site. Welcome to my real world.

  21. sadbutmadlad says:

    I’m only unpleasant to green anti fracking eco loonies to the extent of trolling them. Most of the time I debate quite civilly with those whose minds and ears are not totally blocked by the green propaganda.

  22. DirkH says:

    At 3:19 : “Everyday I have to wake up and do yoga and exercise, whether I want to or not, just to make sure those chemicals don’t stay in my body.”

    Hey, it’s the volunteer stand up comedy brigade doin a free gig. What’s not to like?

  23. Gareth Phillips says:

    glenndc says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:44 am
    Mr. Philips, could you please direct me to a list of the ‘skeptic’ bloggers and their specific posts that disturbed you? As a prolix reader of the debate, I have seen very little that would be outside the pale in any reasonably vigorous and well coached forensics class at the HS level, and find myself surprised by your statement. Much obliged.

    Hi Glenn, no problem. If you have a look through the posts with the Black Swan title, I’m sure you will find lots of examples. If you want heavy stuff on the other side of the debate I’d suggest Skeptical science. For an example of a site which manages to hold pretty civil discussions check out And then there’s Physics where Anders manages to keep things civil during pretty interesting debates.

  24. ConfusedPhoton says:

    Lord Deben is a long time believer in AGW. Unfortunately he has no scientific knowledge nor ability whatsoever.
    He has tried to equate climate scepticism with the tobacco industry coverup in the past, e.g.:

    “Of course these merchants of doubt peddle a philosophy underpinned by much darker forces – political and financial interests whose private wealth or cherished beliefs are threatened by action on climate change. Their use of money and campaigning techniques mirror those of the tobacco industry in fighting action on smoking and health. They use their resources to spread uncertainty in order to delay action and debilitate activists.”
    http://www.globeinternational.org/index.php/news/blog/item/human-beings-are-not-ostriches-we-insure

    He used Ad Hominem attacks whenever he wishes but condemns it when it is convenient.

  25. clipe says:

    From BishopHill commenter.

    “KLU KLUX KLAN immediately springs to mind !”
    Feb 8, 2014 at 3:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterStreetcred

  26. DirkH says:

    Dave in Canmore says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:57 am
    “Gareth Phillips gets paid for his opinions?
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/
    Gareth can you confirm if this is you?
    PS it won’t lower my assement of the quality of your observations.”

    Nice find! It will lower my assessment of everything he says; as he seems to be a corporate shill for the climate change corruptocracy.

  27. ed mister jones says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:30 am

    “Gareth Phillips

    Indeed, I think it likely that the response you say you obtain is universal when people discover you are a shill employed to spread disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Carbon Trading industry. People may want to see this link which – by the way – has a nice photo of you
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    Richard”

    Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

  28. Jimbo says:

    Lord Deben obviously has not been at the climate thing long enough. Just go to the Guardian and place a dissenting comment and you will have all kinds of abuse, innuendo and general unpleasantness hurled at you.

    I could name you a number of cold blooded murderers and terrorists who are convinced for the case to ‘take action’ on climate.

    Now who is Lord Deben? He was one of the ministers under Margaret Thatcher also known as John Selwyn Gummer. In 1990 he was the then agricultural minister during the ‘Mad Cow Disease‘ scare in the UK. To show his confidence in British beef he gave his 4 year old daughter a beef burger which she ate in front of the cameras. Eight years later 32 people had died of CJD, the human form of BSE. A daughter of a friend of Lord Deben died of CJD in 2007.

    Lord Deben is not someone whose judgment is good.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/369625.stm

  29. Tim Ball says:

    Isn’t Lord Deben living proof of why the ordinary people wrote the Constitution and formed the United States?

  30. Gareth Phillips says:

    Dave in Canmore says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:57 am
    Gareth Phillips gets paid for his opinions?
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/
    Gareth can you confirm if this is you?
    PS it won’t lower my assement of the quality of your observations.

    Hullo Dave and thanks. No, it is not me, though it could be seen as a compliment to have his looks!. I do lobby politicians on a regular basis and sit on select committees when required, however my brief is with regard to health, particularly Mental health and Oncology (or Cancer care) It is not my main role, but comes as part of the package of my main activity. Not so exciting, but good old motormouth is convinced the EU chap is me so nothing I can say is likely to convince him otherwise. Cheers G

  31. clipe says:

    Sorry got it wrong. It’s the “Klimate Khange Klan”

    “Its the CCC, the Climate Change Clan” (Feb 7, 2014 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterc777)

    No it’s not. Make no mistake, it’s a masked KKK once again, this time the ‘Klimate Khange Klan’.
    Ugly, sad, reprehensible, destructive, cowardly and distressing. The antithesis of civilised society.
    The sole province of the weak and curiously desperate.
    Feb 8, 2014 at 8:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterManfred

  32. Gareth Phillips says:

    ed mister jones says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    richardscourtney says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:30 am

    “Gareth Phillips

    Indeed, I think it likely that the response you say you obtain is universal when people discover you are a shill employed to spread disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Carbon Trading industry. People may want to see this link which – by the way – has a nice photo of you
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    Richard”

    Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

    @Garethman
    It certainly would have Ed if there were any truth in it, but I’m afraid old Motormouth has only a hazy view of reality sometimes.

    REPLY: After checking, this particular Gareth Phillips lives far away in Wales, too far for a daily commute to the Sindicatum office in London – anthony

  33. markstoval says:

    Lord Deben of the UK seems to be doing a bit of projection. It is the “CO2 is a poison” side that changes the historical record (“adjusts” the past) as in 1984, refuses to meet in open and fair debate, seeks to silence people through intimidation, calls others “deniers” as if they denied the WWII Holocaust, accuses skeptics of seeking to destroy the world, and continually goes to personal attack rather than cite honest data.

    I have yet to meet a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fanatic that does not use ad hominem as his first line of debate. (preferred even over dishonest statistical manipulation)

    I say let the Lord clean his own house before talking about the housekeeping of others.

  34. eyesonu says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:23 am

    ….. “I suspect a persons attitude on a given subject owes more to their own personality than the subject in hand, and such people tend to express unresolved anger through the medium of the debate. ” …..

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

    Your closing and final words on a previous post on WUWT Friday, Feb 7 was quote: ….” See you next Tuesday.” It was related to your use of metaphors. Are you a couple of days early or did it reflect an expression of unresolved anger?

    Google search: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=See-you-next-Tuesday

    See You Next Tuesday
    A clandestine method of calling someone a cunt.

    Particularly effective when used prior to a three day week end.

    C: See
    U: You
    N: Next
    T: Tuesday

    Perhaps you really meant to return to that thread in a couple more days, maybe.

  35. mosomoso says:

    I haven’t met a person who is in a postition to naysay climate, so I can only assume “naysayer” is a pejorative directed at the likes of me. It’s odd that Lord Deben can’t refrain from a term of abuse even in this context. Cloaking his insult in prissiness and whining does not make it less of an insult.

  36. azleader says:

    This is a mind-boggling example of the extent to which climate change extremists will sink for their cause while unjustly accusing skeptics.at the same time.

  37. rabbit says:

    To this day I cannot fathom what 10:10 were thinking. What was the message? Be deathly afraid of environmentalists?

  38. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Phillips:

    re your post at February 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm.

    Firstly, I was not the discoverer of your identity. That was Randle Dewees in the ‘Black Swan’ thread and his post is here here.

    Subsequently in that thread several people have commented on your being an employed shill while you have made a number of posts in that thread and not rebutted it not even with a PS to one of your posts on that thread.

    Secondly, in this thread you have claimed in the post I am answering that it is not you.

    Perhaps you would be willing
    (a) to explain why you did not correct Randle Dewees despite all the comments on that thread which mentioned the information?
    and
    (b) to explain why anybody should believe your rebuttal in this thread given the documented falsehoods you have posted on two recent WUWT threads?

    Richard

  39. charles nelson says:

    Being attacked by John Selwyn Gummer is like being mauled by a dead sheep.

  40. David, UK says:

    I did have a chuckle when I saw Debben’s comment. How he starts off with a silly bit of name-calling (Climate “naysayers”, no less) then accuses his targets of resorting to “abuse and innuendo.” Priceless irony! Thanks for the laugh, Debs!

  41. Jimbo says:

    Now let’s look at Lord Debens financial interests.

    According to the UK Parliament’s Register of Interests Lord Deben has shareholdings in a sustainable home building firm called Zero C Ltd.

    ZeroC are highly experienced, very well funded, sustainable developers. We have been building low carbon homes and commercial buildings for the past 10 years…..

    We aim to build all of our homes to the minimum standard of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and it represents a 44% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the 2006 regulations (25% compared to the the 2010 version) and a 50% reduction in water usage in a typical home. A number of our new homes are being built to Zero Carbon Code Level 6.
    http://www.zerocholdings.co.uk/home

    He is also the Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. Here is what they say they do.

    Our purpose is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change.

    According to the UK Parliament’s Register of Interests (above) he also has shareholdings in Valpak Limited. What does Valpak do? According to Valpak’s website they are a

    Leading provider of environmental compliance, recycling and sustainability solutions

    The Carbon Reduction Commitment – Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) was introduced in 2008 and is the first piece of compulsory UK legislation to address energy use amongst medium to large non-energy intensive organisations.
    http://www.valpak.co.uk/compliance-services/crc

    There is absolutely no suggestion at all that the committee might advise government to initiate legislation or impose regulations that might benefit sustainable home builders or co2 reduction compliance companies.

    That is Lord Deben.

  42. Video: Who’s the parasite? Amazing restraint by Mr. Maki. Loved the comment: “How did you get here?” Perhaps Bill drove them over …

  43. Gareth Phillips says:

    eyesonu says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Hi Eyesonu, thanks for the explanation. New one on me, but very enlightening, I will note that for future reference. Sadly many people are conflating my identity with some other chap employed by the EU. This looks to be more of the same. I’m beginning to feel like an international man of mystery! Maybe a look at the thread leading up to that comment may shed some light on the subject ? I am also in an important meeting a few hundred miles away on Tuesday so I doubt I will have time to blog, but I will try though it’s likely to be late. In the meantime I shall try and refrain from calling you next thursday or discussing climate yearly national trends. Cheers G

  44. ZT says:

    ‘Lord’ Deben and the truth – are never closely associated, e.g.:

  45. Matt G says:

    The alarmists have failed on global warming debate because their terms are never clear what they are on about. I come to terms that they always use a straw-man argument. Again what does the heck, “climate naysayers” mean? Not surprisingly they always get mixed up with the behavior of people supporting their view, compared to other people with skeptical one.

  46. Gunga Din says:

    glenndc says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:44 am
    ==================================================================
    Did you ever watch “All in the Family”? Archie Bunker often would express a conservative view of the times but the liberal writers would give him a stupid reason for holding it. (I’m using “liberal” and “conservative” in the context of the US. This is an international blog and often those words hold different connotations outside of the US.)
    Alarmist blogs might edit out the reasoned comments and leave the “stupid” behind.

  47. Paul Pierett says:

    http://bestmomstv.com/files/2013/03/Tongue-stuck-to-pole-girl-150×150.jpg

    Stuck on Stupid.

    I run into this on every Blog especially Greenfry or I manage to get setting printed. Let the dumb mules freeze to death.

  48. Stephen Richards says:

    Seldom Glummer only debates with people of the same mind. He hates the little and finds anyone who doesn’t follow his advice annoying. From direct experience.

  49. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Ph1ll1ps:

    It seems you have overlooked my post at February 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm which is here.

    This is understandable because my post was held in moderat1on for a few minutes.

    However, now I have drawn it to your attention I feel sure that you will want to answer my questions both here and on the continuing ‘Black Swan’ thread.

    Richard

  50. ferdberple says:

    Lord Deben’s hypocritical remarks are no different than racism. He lumps “the climate naysayers” together and calls them “so personally unpleasant”.

    Lord Deben has not met all the climate naysayers. At most he has met a small sample, so his remarks show prejudice. He is judging all members of the group to be the same, having never met the majority of the group. This is racism.

    Then, to top it all off, he labels the group and with derogatory labels. Which clearly establishes that he is personally unpleasant. So we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. A hypocrite dressed in Lord clothing.

  51. Gareth Phillips says:

    Motormouth, you need to read the thread again. It’s still there, if you read things without shooting from the hip you would have seen it. When asked earlier in the evening if your claim was true, I responded to another poster thus:

    The poster asked this:
    I was wondering why you are so present, polite, and well, professional (if vague) in your replies. I didn’t take you for a loony (though I’ve run across a few rational seeming ones). I figured you for a paid troll, and I think I’m right on that. But, you are in “The industry”, a lot of what you say makes more sense now.

    I responded with this
    Thanks Randle, not one of my papers or comments. You are correct, I do have a few papers to my name, but that is someone different. I’m not a paid lobbyist in this area, but I do lobby on a political basis in other areas. I try an remain polite because I believe that civil discussion brings out the best in people and is the most productive approach. It also drives the trolls crazy which is a bonus.

    As you now may have realised I lobby on health issues, specifically Cancer and Mental health. But you seemed to be determined to conflate me with another chap. One of the things I learned over many years in Psychiatry is that if delusions are challenged they can be re-enforced, so once I had pointed out I was not this man I refrained on debating the issue with you. You can be somewhat brittle to be diplomatic, and I did not wish to undermine and interesting date by giving you an excuse to explode was it were. Hopefully you are now convinced that i am someone completely different?

  52. Gareth Phillips says:

    ps That should read ‘an interesting debate’ auto-correct interfering again!

  53. eyesonu says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm

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

    You seem to be confused. In your “mental health profession” could it be possible that you have a projection of anger to manifest itself into confusion?

  54. Stephen Richards says:

    REPLY: After checking, this particular Gareth Phillips lives far away in Wales, too far for a daily commute to the Sindicatum office in London – anthony

    Sorry Anthony but it is still probably the same guy. You have to understand the british way of working in these green organisations. They tend to spend time away from their main offices, work from home and travel in by train when necessary. The commute from Sth Wales, for example, is not unreasonable in the UK. There are many people who commute from Doncaster in the north, every day.

  55. ferdberple says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:23 am
    To be honest as a fairly prolific blogger on all shades of the climate debate
    ===========
    Any time someone opens with “To be honest” you can be sure that what follows is not. It is like the word “but” in a sentence. I really like you but, … To be honest, ….

    Never try and BS an old BS’er.

  56. Gareth Phillips says:

    Richard, it seems our posts are indeed overlapping. I’m not going to argue this but I am really not the chap you believe me to be and I am not going to debate this any further. If you have anything relevant to this thread I’d be happy to respond, same with the Black Swan thread.

  57. Brad says:

    Gareth Phillips,
    You say you are a prolific enviro blogger. If the link found is not you, kindly direct us to your site for verification. It is odd to claim that someone who you share names with yet don’t know is handsome? Maybe a little self-indulging ego popped up? If the link is you, then I would suggest some counseling, it is sad to see someone hide from who they truly are. Do you even hide your true location? Have to wonder why you would do that, maybe the tax man cometh?

    Just pondering…:)

  58. Bruce of the North says:

    It’s Ku Klux Klan. And there are no tarsands in Canada, that would be La Brea tar pits in California.

  59. John Law says:

    Debden is not worth getting excited about. He is universally despised in the Uk by left and right. If he sides with the “Ecoloons”, that’s great; a bit like having Hitler on your PR team!

  60. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Phillips:

    Come now, your history of mendacity on WUWT shows you can do much better than your post at
    February 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm.

    It claims you have answered my questions, and that you answered them with a post on the other thread which you quoted. But that quote does NOT answer my questions: it evades them.

    Indeed, it is clear that others did not recognise your post as being a rebuttal of the revelation of your identity by Randle Dewees because people continued to mention your being a shill after that on the thread where you posted it.

    Richard

  61. Cheshirered says:

    Nice try at being fair, reasonable & equitable, Mr Watts.

    Expect tumbleweed to blow across your pc……

  62. richardscourtney says:

    Mods:
    I would be grateful if my post in moderat1on were recovered as a matter of urgency.
    Sorry about this but I think you will understand why when you see its content.
    Richard

  63. sadbutmadlad says:

    It is a bit weird that a prolific enviro blogger doesn’t advertise his blog at any opportunity. All the prolific bloggers I know will always try and sneak in their blog’s URL into every conversation.

  64. Brad says:

    Gareth,
    Do you have a profile on LinkedIn?
    There are 25 people listed with your name.

  65. Chad Wozniak says:

    Deben’s comments apply first and foremost to alarmists, not skeptics – and to himself. Skeptics offer facts and physical proof, alarmists offer ad hominem, invective, abuse and threats. What a lying sniveling hypocrite the man is.
    @ferdberple – well said.

  66. Gareth Phillips says:

    Brad says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    Gareth Phillips,
    You say you are a prolific enviro blogger. If the link found is not you, kindly direct us to your site for verification. It is odd to claim that someone who you share names with yet don’t know is handsome? Maybe a little self-indulging ego popped up? If the link is you, then I would suggest some counseling, it is sad to see someone hide from who they truly are. Do you even hide your true location? Have to wonder why you would do that, maybe the tax man cometh?
    Just pondering…:)

    Hi Brad, I think you have substantialy more information on me than I have on anyone else on this thread. I know that there are many disappointed people who were excited at the prospect of having a climate lobbyist cornered, sorry to disappoint you. My blog is unrelated to climate change so is of no relevance. I also would like to protect it if that’s ok, incidentally I don’t have to verify anything, apart from possibly to Anthony who I trust with confidential information.. By the way I know this chap is handsome because Richard kindly supplied a photograph. I really would like to be worried about the taxman because that would mean I had enough finance to be worried about. Next please. :)

  67. Gareth Phillips says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:05 pm
    Mods:
    I would be grateful if my post in moderat1on were recovered as a matter of urgency.
    Sorry about this but I think you will understand why when you see its content.
    Richard

    Richard, don’t worry about it, it was an easy mistake to make and understandable in the circumstance. In reality, it was quite funny so don’t be over concerned about your posts. Cheers G

  68. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Ph1ll1ps:

    I fail to understand your post addressed to me at February 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm.

    I made no “mistake” of which I am aware.
    I think the issue is serious and fail to see anything “funny” about it.
    And my post has still not appeared so I fail to understand how you can comment on it.

    Richard

  69. ferdberple says:

    albertalad says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:57 am
    My province is under constant attack, my city is under constant assault from all over the world, the entire oil based industry is under daily attack up to and including the US White House
    ==============
    Yet they are happy to buy oil from countries that wish for their destruction. Countries that will use the oil money to further this aim. Reward your enemies and punish your friends. What could possibly go wrong.

  70. richardscourtney says:

    Mods.

    Sincere thanks for resurrecting my post at February 9, 2014 at 1:02 pm which has now appeared. It is here.

    Richard

  71. Ian W says:

    It is easy to think that someone using inexact terminology like “climate naysayers” is scientifically illiterate. However, this would be underestimating what they are doing, this is clever spin or more correctly, propaganda. By using these terms they move away from the positions that have become indefensible such as ‘children not knowing what snow is’ – olive groves in UK – no skiing possible in Scotland – all due to the warmth that was forecast but which has not come. Therefore, use ‘climate’ alone as if ‘climate’ is a threat. This not only moves them away from the indefensible but makes arguing with someone with such inexact terminology close to impossible. The same goes for the move to ‘carbon’ as in ‘carbon footprint’ or ‘carbon pollution’ – they cannot use the ‘carbon dioxide green house gas’ arguments now as 17 years have gone by with no warming and as Viscount Monckton is now repeatedly pointing out there is a considerable gap between projections of warming and actual temperatures. Lord Deben (John Gummer) needs the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scare to continue as he makes money and has authority because of it. But he is far to clever to talk about ‘catastrophic warming’ when it isn’t happening, so he talks about ‘climate’ as a threat – not even climate change and projects onto the scientists ‘climate (change) denial’ which of course is what every CAGW proponent does when they postulate their scare stories.

    It seems the only way to get across to the people being taken in by Lord Deben’s propaganda is to go back to first principles. Lord Deben et al predicted that carbon dioxide emissions by human industry (which are only ~5% of natural emissions) would lead to runaway warming. There is no proof that carbon dioxide actually affects the temperature of the actual atmosphere, it has been rising rapidly over the last 17 years and temperatures have remained more or less constant. They had been rising after the Little Ice Age but now they have stopped rising for more than 17 years. The AGW hypothesis does NOT say that Carbon Dioxide warming was dangerous, the hypothesis was that the very small warming from Carbon Dioxide was meant to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and it was that rise in water vapor a far more powerful ‘green house gas’ that was going to lead to runaway warming. The models all show a tropical tropospheric hot spot caused by the water vapor – the problem is that the real atmosphere has not got a tropical tropospheric hotspot nor has there been any warming for 17 years. So the ‘Global Warming Hypothesis’ has failed it has been falsified. Lord Deben et al are left with throwing insults and using meaningless terms to try to continue the confidence trick being played on the world to enrich a few while causing deaths from cold in energy poverty.

    Meanwhile, while you have been reading this about the enrichment of a few based on flawed hypotheses and precautionary principles for unlikely events, around 20 children have died. They are dying of hunger and related causes at the rate of one every 5 seconds. A REAL tragedy and a REAL death rate. They could be saved by a single $1 a day while $billions are poured into ‘climate’ for no reason but the enrichment of a few Malthusians.

  72. Pat Frank says:

    I’m sorry Mr. Maki wasn’t more assertive with facts and challenges. It’s hard to be mentally agile in a confrontation like that but, for example, one might take a put-up-or-shut-up position with the kid with the sick mother and offer to have her evaluated by a competent doctor. Mr. Maki could easily pay for that. I’d bet whatever is her problem, it could not be traced to chemicals coming from a refinery. After all, if it’s a problem of dispersed chemicals, there should be a cluster of sick people. Is there?

    The Houston Chronicle studied air quality in the Houston environs, by setting up 72 air-quality monitors in affected communities, including Manchester where that kid lives. They found quantities that, “exceeded standards the most often were the chemical building blocks chloroform and benzene, which are used in industrial processes to make dyes, detergents and plastics, and can also come from sewage treatment (chloroform) and traffic and cigarette smoke (benzene).

    These two chemicals were found at levels above federal guidelines at nearly half of the 100 sites the newspaper monitored. But only at some locations in Port Neches and Manchester were levels high enough that if breathed over a lifetime, one additional person in 100,000 would get cancer.

    So, there’s the statistic: one more per 100,000. The US over all cancer incidence is 330 per 100,000. In Port Neches and Manchester, it’s apparently 331 per 100,000, an increase of 0.3%. That’s alarming, isn’t it. Anyone think that’s a fact of measurement? Or could it possibly be extrapolation of some linear model into the fringe extreme? Wonder what the CI is. Could 0.3% be outside the noise?

    That same “Global Patterns of Cancer Incidence” paper records, by the way, that African American men have a higher per 100,000 incidence of cancer (453) than Caucasian men (378), but Hispanic men are lower than both (276). Caucasian women (302) are higher than African American women (270), who are higher than Hispanic women (220). Clear signs of an oppressor class there, alright.

    The US has a notably high cancer incidence relative to the rest of the world. So does Canada, though it’s lower than the US. Algeria is at the bottom. It’s not about breathing chemicals. To my eye, cancer rates approximately track societal wealth. Maybe there’s a reportage problem. Maybe there’s a junk-food/leisure time connection.

    Here’s the EPA report on the Kalamazoo River oil spill. It was 843,000 gallons large. But it seems that Enbridge is doing its job to clean it up.

  73. Gareth Phillips says:

    Indeed, it is clear that others did not recognise your post as being a rebuttal of the revelation of your identity by Randle Dewees because people continued to mention your being a shill after that on the thread where you posted it.

    That is true Richard, you were not the only one not have read the posts, seen my reassurance that it was not me and continued to post this exciting news. I think you highlighted the issue much more than anyone else, and as I had already denied that identity I felt it would be better to just leave you to it. I was surprised when you introduced it to a new thread though, at that point it became worthy of a Brian Rix farce. But there we are, hopefully you are now convinced and I hope you do not take your mistake in my identity too seriously. Nice photo by the way, I wish I did look like that!

  74. SandyInLimousin says:

    Anthony
    Some of us Brits are mad enough to commute from Wales to Watford (just north of London) and similar other long distance commutes. Although you are probably right in what you say in this particular instance.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25551393?oo=7323

  75. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    At February 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm Gareth Ph1ll1ps replies to multiple requests for the location of his blog saying

    My blog is unrelated to climate change so is of no relevance. I also would like to protect it if that’s ok

    OK. I cannot think of any reason why a person who takes the trouble to create a blog would want to “protect it” from people visiting it. Can anyone suggest a plausible reason, please?

    I am not asking him because I would not believe him if I was using an umbrella and he said it was raining.

    Richard

  76. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Lord Deben renames skeptics as “climate naysayers”. So we can’t even complain about the climate anymore.

  77. Alan Robertson says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    “Hopefully you are now convinced that i am someone completely different?”
    ___________________________
    Nope. I see you quite clearly for who you really are. Go away, troll.

  78. Bill Sticker says:

    Do none of those nine(!?) anti-pipeline protesters in the picture have the slightest sense of irony? Surely those carbon dioxide unfriendly torches they’re wielding should have been replaced by more eco-friendly dynamo wind-up lights?

  79. Gail Combs says:

    Witch Hunt.

    Remember it was teenage girls that started the Salem witch trials.

  80. Gareth Phillips says:

    Ah Alan, the irony! What a paradoxical post for the subject of the thread!
    Richard, can you give me your name, address telephone numbed, personal email etc? Of course not, however if you did have permission to access my blog you would be privy to important information unrelated to this blog i wish to protect. Looking at some of the responses to my posts which I try to keep civil ( though not always successfully) I would be very foolish to share such details. Have a look at Alan’s post, would you want to share info. in such a situation? Of course not.

  81. Brad says:

    Gareth,
    Your response was very well written but evasive nonetheless. ( same as your verbal dueling with Richard, no plain answers, only deflection.) I know a lot of people who think they are very clever writers who convey nothing but their egotistical conceit. Once exposed, they are forever compromised and therefore to be dismissed.

  82. Harry Passfield says:

    ConfusedPhoton says: “Lord Deben is a long time believer in AGW”

    Could be….assuming you meant that Deben is a long time believer in Advancing Gummer’s Wealth.

    By the way, having read and commented on the Black Swan thread (and others) I am now getting heartily sick of the sight and words of one Gareth Phillips. He brings nothing to debate except disruption and most everything he claims can be countered by letting him have back the many ‘not’s that are missing from his drivel.

  83. catweazle666 says:

    How many “climate naysayers” (whatever they are) have publicly suggested that Warmists such as John “BSEburger” Gummer AKA Lord Deben should be killed for their beliefs, as was asserted by Professor Richard Parncutt of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz?

  84. Txomin says:

    Indeed. Deben et al please post the (undoctored) photographs of skeptics with balaclavas.

  85. john robertson says:

    @Richard Courtney 1:36
    Dare I suggest a pause?
    You are getting sucked in.
    Gareth Phillips comes here to defend the indefensible, distract, arm wave and drone on.
    Most commenters seem to realize this, he is almost amusement.
    Generally I have stopped reading comment under that name.
    Many words, nill content.
    Unfortunately due to your engaging this distractor, I have had to read its comments to understand yours.
    Stop it.
    I have learnt nothing new.
    Too much of this commentary is now about Gareth, this is a success for this”prolific blogger”.
    You have been trolled, let go of the bait.

  86. richardscourtney says:

    Gareth Ph1ll1ps:

    At February 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm you ask me

    Richard, can you give me your name, address telephone numbed, personal email etc? Of course not

    Rubbish! Of course I can!

    You will find them on the final page of this item
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

    I don’t use the fax much now and you didn’t ask for that but I have supplied it, too. No blog is listed because I don’t have one.

    Now about this blog of yours that is so secret?

    Richard

  87. ferdberple says:

    I ran a fox index on Gareth WUWT and Sindicatum. They writing style shows a similar mean and variance, so on balance of probabilities they are the same person.

  88. John West says:

    Watching the “people’s” video I thought it was hilarious when Mr. Maki asked them how they got here! They didn’t want to explore their hypocrisy just dismiss it as not the issue.

    And he must have been about to explode holding back laughing at them when they started talking about it being “heavier” causing pipes to burst and the number of chemicals.

    Hat’s off to Mr. Maki, I doubt I would have been nearly as cordial.

    If any of you “people” happen to read this 1) if the demand stops the production stops, so stop driving around harassing people increasing the demand, actually, just stop using fossil fuels entirely. 2) Yoga and exercise don’t remove “chemicals” any more than not doing yoga and exercise. 3) You are made of chemicals, lots of them. 4) If you don’t like where you live … move. 5) Look up a crime’s elements before accusing someone of committing it! 6) If you wish to make a currently legal activity (such as producing, transporting, and selling fossil fuels) illegal there is a process for doing just that and it’s not forming a lynch mob. 7) Look up a little history for some perspective, fossil fuels have given us the greatest life span, standard of living, and quality of life ever in the history of our species, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. 8) Here’s a concept, before confronting someone about an issue, at least look up some basic facts about it. 9) If you wouldn’t want someone showing up at your door at 10:00 at night accusing you of being a murderer because you use fossil fuels then don’t show up at someone else’s door at 10:00 at night accusing them of being a murderer for providing you with the fossil fuels you demand. 10) Some of you in 20 years will probably realize how stupid you sounded in that video; respect your elders, they really do know more than you do. (When I was a teenager a popular saying was “Don’t trust anyone over 30” but I would say “don’t trust anyone under 30”; experience is the best teacher and there is no substitute for maturity.)

  89. Gareth Phillips says:

    Brad says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    Gareth,
    Your response was very well written but evasive nonetheless. ( same as your verbal dueling with Richard, no plain answers, only deflection.) I know a lot of people who think they are very clever writers who convey nothing but their egotistical conceit. Once exposed, they are forever compromised and therefore to be dismissed.

    Brad, ask me a straight question and I will give you a straight answer. Over to you.

  90. Berényi Péter says:

    Well, the Kalamazoo River oil spill was a most serious incident indeed, exacerbated by an almost incredible level of unprofessional irresponsibility.

    The investigators found that the operating firm, which had received an automated signal from the pipeline that a breach had occurred, misunderstood or did not believe the signal and attempted to continue to pump dilbit oil through the pipeline for 17 hours after the breach.

    There is no excuse for that.

    EPA response was likely inadequate as well. They are much better at fighting red herrings like CO2 than actual pollution. Putting it into the very same category, that is, labelling a non toxic substance as “pollutant” effectively dilutes and misdirects efforts to establish a clean and healthy environment. I am afraid that’s the idea behind the entire hullabaloo.

    However, cases like this are supposed to be fought at court, not by some self appointed “People’s Army” or whatnot.

  91. ferdberple says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm
    By the way I know this chap is handsome
    ======
    you must be his mother.

  92. jeez says:

    Richard, it is possible that this is him.

    And he contributed to this.

  93. Gail Combs says:

    Pat Frank says: @ February 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    ….The US has a notably high cancer incidence relative to the rest of the world. So does Canada, though it’s lower than the US. Algeria is at the bottom. It’s not about breathing chemicals. To my eye, cancer rates approximately track societal wealth. Maybe there’s a reportage problem. Maybe there’s a junk-food/leisure time connection….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Nice information.

    The probable reason cancer tracks societal wealth is because it is a disease of the old in many cases. Also the weak babies in the USA and other first world nations live instead of dying before they are five.

    The worst country is Afghanistan where 119.41 infants under one year old die per 1,000 live births. (life expectancy 50.11)
    The USA is 5.90 (life expectancy 78.62),
    Canada 4.78 (life expectancy 81.57)
    UK & Australia 4.5. (life expectancy 80.29/81.98)
    The lowest is Monaco @ 1.81 (life expectancy 89.63)
    link

  94. Alan Robertson says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    Ah Alan, the irony!
    ______________________
    Oh, you are so good at what you do (but not good enough to avoid detection, here.) The only thing about you which remains unclear, is whether yours is a meretricious mendacity or if you are only playing your untruthful games for the fun of it. One thing is certain, you are very good at it- you just tried to give yourself the appearance of innocence while denigrating me, as you have done so many times to others in these threads. In any case, your efforts have been successful in a way, because you have managed to take attention away from thread topics and onto yourself, in hopes that some hapless reader may not see the truth of what is presented here.That’s where it all falls apart for you- too many of us are too practiced at spotting the liars and propagandists, no matter how polished and subtle they may be; people just like you. As I said before, troll- I see you for what you are- you may as well take your misdirections and your flawed logic and your innuendos and just go away. You aren’t convincing anyone here of anything.

  95. Gareth Phillips says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    The probable reason cancer tracks societal wealth is because it is a disease of the old in many cases. Also the weak babies in the USA and other first world nations live instead of dying before they are five.

    The worst country is Afghanistan where 119.41 infants under one year old die per 1,000 live births. (life expectancy 50.11)
    The USA is 5.90 (life expectancy 78.62),
    Canada 4.78 (life expectancy 81.57)
    UK & Australia 4.5. (life expectancy 80.29/81.98)
    The lowest is Monaco @ 1.81 (life expectancy 89.63)
    link

    That is spot on Gail. It also a reason why dementia and other diseases of the older person are more common in developed countries.

  96. Alan Robertson says:

    john robertson says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    _______________________
    You are correct, of course.

  97. tty says:

    This coyness about Gareth Phillips blog all seems somewhat excessive since it took me all of ten seconds to locate it.

  98. richardscourtney says:

    jeez:

    re your post at February 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm.

    Yes, that could be him. That guy is in the UK. Our character says he is not in the UK which – in the light of his earlier falsehoods – adds to the possibility that it is him.

    Richard

  99. Jimbo says:

    Gareth Phillips you need to get in touch with Gareth Phillips. Why? Here are his blog posts in order.

    …Many of my colleagues in the climate investment space were shocked by the European Commission’s proposal to exclude international emission reductions….
    ————————–
    …There is a general perception that the purpose of emission trading schemes is to reduce GHG emissions as cheaply as possible…
    ————————–
    …The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) must feel like unloved offspring of the Kyoto Protocol, once billed as a significant part of the global flight against climate change
    ————————–
    Extend the concept of supplementarity such that both the use and the generation of emission reductions
    ————————–
    Representatives of the countries that have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
    ————————–
    …However together, aviation and shipping account for at least 5.3 per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
    ————————–
    …This is exacerbated with the global economic decline and the oversupply of carbon credits, or certified emission reductions (CERs) from the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). …
    ————————–
    …Political inertia and empty rhetoric are diluting and undermining the efforts of market based mechanisms to tackle climate change….
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    Gareth Phillips has been a naughty carbon boy.

  100. Brad says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:57 pm
    Brad says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    Gareth,
    Your response was very well written but evasive nonetheless. ( same as your verbal dueling with Richard, no plain answers, only deflection.) I know a lot of people who think they are very clever writers who convey nothing but their egotistical conceit. Once exposed, they are forever compromised and therefore to be dismissed.

    Brad, ask me a straight question and I will give you a straight answer. Over to you.

    ********************************************************************************************************
    Gareth,
    is this you? http://www.justgiving.com/GarethPhillips78

    In exchange, here is my website: http://www.northwestenergyconsulting.com

    If you really want to contribute and not detract from the core discussion, i more than welcome everyone. Just don’t play word games anymore.

    Brad

  101. richardscourtney says:

    tty:

    re your post at February 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    I wonder why it took you so long. I provided it above.

    Richard

  102. Hamish McCallum says:

    rabbit February 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    “To this day I cannot fathom what 10:10 were thinking.”

    It’s pretty clear what they were thinking. It’s less clear how they rationalised that disgusting thought to themselves. The producers tried to argue that it was all in jest, but that was such obvious rubbish even their natural supporters (a gullible lot, by nature) wouldn’t swallow it.

  103. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Minor correction: please note that it is “KU Klux Klan”, not “KLU…..”
    Usual apology if this has already been covered.

    Ian M.

  104. Jimbo says:

     

    REPLY: After checking, this particular Gareth Phillips lives far away in Wales, too far for a daily commute to the Sindicatum office in London – anthony 

    When I worked in London some years back there was one guy who came to work Monday to Friday from Wales.

  105. M Courtney says:

    If Gareth Phillips says he isn’t a paid Eurocrat then he isn’t.

    From his first posts my guess is that he is a geographer or statistical mapmaker from South Wales or maybe Herefordshire, probably with a PR role.

    But I still don’t know which adaptation policy he thinks anyone on WUWT has disagreed with or what evidence of the case for climate change he thinks would persuade anyone on WUWT ir anywhere.

  106. Joe says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Hi Glenn, no problem. If you have a look through the posts with the Black Swan title, I’m sure you will find lots of examples. If you want heavy stuff on the other side of the debate I’d suggest Skeptical science. For an example of a site which manages to hold pretty civil discussions check out And then there’s Physics where Anders manages to keep things civil during pretty interesting debates.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    Gareth,

    While I disagree wth your position on climate change, your point here is fair and well presented and it’s a shame that some here take issue with it. I’d go so far as to say that their (admittedly polite) disagreement supports your initial contention by effectively “calling you out” on something that’s as plain as a a pikestaff. Demanding justification of a self-evident statement is aggressive no matter how politely it’s phrased.

    They would, no doubt, hide behind the “need for empirical evidence” of your claim, as if everything in life must be evidenced and cross-referenced as thoroughly as they (rightly) expect in scientific matters. That’s lunacy when you only need to read any web forum to see for yourself that some people on all sides of all debates will inevitably reach for invective at some point, in many cases as a weapon of first choice.

    What I hope you, in turn, would accept is that it’s rare (in fact, I can’t think of a single example) for climate sceptics to rally in public in ways designed to cause physical intimidation to their opponents. Nor do they, as a rule, attack in mob style even on forums. A post similar to yours on most AGW sites would have illicited far more than the 2 or 3 challenges yours has in the last 80+ posts.

    It’s also almost unthinkable that such a post on, say, Real Science, would garner even one supporting post (as this one is intended to be) from “the faithful”. The accepted culture on all AGW fora I’ve found has been very much to reject anything posted by an identifed sceptic out of hand. If I were to post on most of them that “I’m a climate sceptic and I had Shredded Wheat for breakfast this morning” there’s a better than even chance that I’d be told they were obviously Cornflakes.

    Nor is there anyone I can think of on the sceptical side of the debate who spends so much time hurling insults, while complaining loudly about those received, as many of the “higher profile” AGW proponents do. Mud-slinging within the sceptic camp is mostly kept where it belongs – in the unwashed ranks. For the other side the Generals very much lead by example!

  107. DickF says:

    “Get off my lawn!”
    -Clint Eastwood (“Gran Torino”)

  108. Gareth Phillips says:

    Thanks Joe, much appreciated. Cheers G

  109. Gareth Phillips says:

    Brad, no that is not me. My problem is that my blog is a professional blog only open to the members of that blog. If I gave out the details of the blog some members of the blog may feel compromised and would not be happy. I can’t really ask hundreds of people for their permission, but I have to ensure their professional confidentiality. Hope you understand, many thanks, G.

  110. Joe says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Thanks Joe, much appreciated. Cheers G
    ———————————————————————————–

    You’re more than welcome :)

    Btw, can I take your lack of disagreement as tacit agreement with the points in the second half of my post? ;)

  111. _Jim says:

    Gareth Phillips says February 9, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Hi Glenn, no problem. If you have a look through the posts with the Black Swan title, I’m sure you will find lots of examples. If you want heavy stuff on the other side of the debate I’d suggest Skeptical science.

    Deferring to PURE applejack (an inebriating substance) …

    .

  112. Par Frank & Gail,

    Indeed, cancer is a matter of age and thus of life expectancy: the cancer risk doubles for every 10 years you get older…

    Some other study looked at the increased cancer mortality in the Texas “cancer alley”, where most of the chemical factories and refinaries were situated. The study showed that cancer incidence was in fact lower than average, but cancer mortality was higher. As relative more poor people live in less attractive neighbourhoods, that seems to show more about the food & health conditions of these people and the health care system in the US than about the risk caused by chemicals…
    That study was from 15-20 years ago, maybe the situation is better now…

  113. _Jim says:

    Gareth Phillips says February 9, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    And then there’s Physics where …

    But of course, it can be assumed you have NEVER heard of, let alone visited Climate Audit and reviewed the literal ‘decomposition’ of M. Mann’s obsequious work by S. McIntyre …

    We have here, ladies and gentleman, a poseur of unusually high order.

  114. richardscourtney says:

    John Robertson

    I understand your concern but there is an issue here (as e.g. Jimbo has recognised).
    Shills employed to undermine WUWT need to be exposed.

    This was what Randle Dewees suggested
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    No clear denial has been obtained. But mystery has increased.
    For example, can you equate these two posts?

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm
    Richard, can you give me your name, address telephone numbed, personal email etc? Of course not, however if you did have permission to access my blog you would be privy to important information unrelated to this blog i wish to protect. Looking at some of the responses to my posts which I try to keep civil ( though not always successfully) I would be very foolish to share such details. Have a look at Alan’s post, would you want to share info. in such a situation? Of course not.

    I provided the requested info.and Brad suggested a blog of someone else who – seeking sponsorship – would want many visitors. This was the reply.

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 3:06 pm
    Brad, no that is not me. My problem is that my blog is a professional blog only open to the members of that blog. If I gave out the details of the blog some members of the blog may feel compromised and would not be happy. I can’t really ask hundreds of people for their permission, but I have to ensure their professional confidentiality. Hope you understand, many thanks, G.

    One of those posts is true.
    I leave you to ponder why the former was provided if the latter is true. The latter is more cogent.

    Richard

  115. David Jones says:

    onlyme says:

    February 9, 2014 at 11:38 am
    “The remark that started ‘Lord’ Deben off is found at https://twitter.com/lorddeben/status/432571803425587201 in which he calls #Anthropogenic #GlobalWarming sceptics ‘deniers/dismissers’ the holocaust referencing Godwins’ law invoking term used by so many alarm spreading followers of #IPCC dogma. This was followed by the remark Antony responded to at https://twitter.com/lorddeben/status/432575875666968577 in which he now labels #CAGW sceptics dissenters.

    The use of the epithet #Denier has been habitual and continual with Deben, and to me is not the kind of behavior that is fitting on part of someone who is supposed to be part of the nobility. There is nothing whatever noble about such speech, and when he is called out on this practice of his, his response is as detailed above, to blame sceptics for attacking, even though he is the first to hurl the slurs.

    I also take exception to his classification of sceptics on the matter of anthropogenic global warming as dismissers, we do not dismiss the evidence but the interpretations and question the models which to date show limited skill at prediction beyond 5 to 10 days.”

    Deben is NOT “nobility” or anything like. As John Selwyn Gummer he was an MP and became Lord Deben when he left the House of Commons in 2010. He became a member of the Cabinet and Secretary of State for the Environment under John Major. He is Chairman of the (supposedly Independent) Committee on Climate Change. He also Chairs a “sustainability consultancy” Sancroft International and Veolia Water UK. Nobility my a***!

  116. asybot says:

    What were we talking about again? Let me think , oh right something about a note to a lord and a pipeline,Maybe a bit of advice?? If you think the person ” invading and “polluting ” any site, answer him?her just with one word: “troll” it would save a little of cyberspace which we all know can only exist due to those evil pipelines. It sure as heck would have saved me a lot of time trying to follow the original subject!

  117. richardscourtney says:

    drumphil:

    I am not an employed shill and I declare my interests. Exposing shills employed to undermine WUWT is not a “witch hunt”.

    Richard

  118. richardscourtney says:

    Mods:
    I mow have two posts in moderation but I know not why.

  119. Jimbo says:

    M Courtney says:
    February 9, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    If Gareth Phillips says he isn’t a paid Eurocrat then he isn’t.

    From his first posts my guess is that he is a geographer or statistical mapmaker from South Wales or maybe Herefordshire, probably with a PR role.

    But I still don’t know which adaptation policy he thinks anyone on WUWT has disagreed with or what evidence of the case for climate change he thinks would persuade anyone on WUWT ir anywhere.

    Thank you M Courtney. He has carried out a lot of comments that don’t actually lead anywhere. I suspect that if he continues here he will soon become a sceptic. Just ask Dr. Judith Curry and about her interactions with sceptics. She soon turned even after calling us the ‘D’ word. Pay heed Gareth as Dr. Judith Curry is a fully certified climatologist unlike the demented astrophysicist Dr. James Hansen. Dr. James Hansen once warned us that the world’s oceans would end up in the atmosphere. He later recanted. How can I take Hansen Fruitcake seriously?

  120. Londo says:

    Living in denial is obvious an occupational hazard that climate fobia afflicted people need to learn to deal with.

  121. Alan Robertson says:

    john robertson says:
    February 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    _________________
    Bravo. Nail, meet hammer.

  122. JohnWho says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 3:06 pm
    Brad, no that is not me. My problem is that my blog is a professional blog only open to the members of that blog. If I gave out the details of the blog some members of the blog may feel compromised and would not be happy. I can’t really ask hundreds of people for their permission, but I have to ensure their professional confidentiality. Hope you understand, many thanks, G.

    In my opinion, an honorable person would have said that when first queried.
    One with something to hide on the other hand would act in deflective manner, which you have.

    Just an observation.

  123. pat says:

    i pretty much ignore any CAGW abuse or reporting that uses the trick of calling AGW “climate”.

    meanwhile, MSM, almost all of which subscribes to Reuters, NEVER seem to report inconvenient truths such as the following. i can find it nowhere else, and – apart from the first para – it’s subscribers’ only here:

    U.S. coal-fired electricity hits 3-year high due to cold weather
    NEW YORK, Feb 7 (Reuters) – Blistering cold weather across the United States in the last six weeks sent power generated by coal to the highest point in three years as utilities relied on the carbon-heavy fuel to meet peak demand, data from Bentek Energy showed on Friday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4013485

  124. pat says:

    one-time consumer-protector obviously ignores the science, but he knows to use “climate change”; he knows to speak of “deniers”; he knows to frame “deniers” as republicans. and he believes Steyer, Bloomberg, Paulson & Gore are genuinely concerned about saving the planet from CAGW! yikes.

    7 Feb: Albany Tribune: Ralph Nader: Climate Disasters and Ending Congressional Stupor Now!
    Every year brings the world more climatological science that man-made climate change, or overall global warming, is chronically worsening.
    Every year, from Antarctica to Greenland, from the Andes to Alaska, the ice is melting, the permafrost is melting, and very soon the Arctic may have a re-unprecedented ice-free season. Every year, more and more businesses are speaking out on how climate change is damaging their businesses. Insurance companies were in the lead on sounding the alarm on global warming. Just a few days ago, Coca-Cola’s vice president for environment and water resources, Jeffrey Seabright, told the New York Times that “increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years” were affecting the supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, “as well as citrus for [Coca-Cola’s] fruit juices.”…
    In Washington, Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, has put climate change on center stage for becoming what he said is a chief contributor to rising global poverty rates…
    Every year, its seems records are being set for sea level rises, more furious storm surges, heat waves, floods, typhoons, and droughts…
    The Republicans are aggressive climate-change deniers. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) calls global warming a massive hoax and is willing to debate any Democrat. While, by and large, most Democrats are concerned but unwilling to make it a campaign or electoral issue. They’re even unwilling to take on Mr. Inhofe…
    The Pentagon’s study a decade ago would be brought to bear with its dire message that climate change is a national security priority…
    Where would the $25 million annual budget come from for such a lobbying group working to prevent trillions of dollars and millions of lives from being lost?…
    Megabillionaire Michael Bloomberg, just named the United Nations special envoy for climate change and cities, already funding efforts to reduce coal usage, could write the check out of his hip pocket. Billionaire Tom Steyer, a big time opponent to the XL pipeline from Canada and a proven environmentalist from California, could also handily write the check.
    Very wealthy Henry M. Paulson Jr., former head of Goldman Sachs and U.S. Treasury Secretary, who is working with Bloomberg and Steyer to commission an economic study on the financial risks connected to climate change, region by region across the U.S. economy, could also write the check.
    And don’t forget Al Gore, the leading global publicist of what climatologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University called a “clear and present danger to civilization.” Former Senator Gore – who received the Nobel Prize in 2007 for highlighting the perils of global warming and climate change – could also fund and lead such a group.
    (Ralph Nader is a politician, activist and the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.)
    http://www.albanytribune.com/07022014-ralph-nader-climate-disasters-ending-congressional-stupor-now-oped/

    don’t know why Nader’s piece appeared in online Albany Tribune, but the Trib is owned by this lot:

    Seractus – About Us
    Seractus executives have vast experience in the area of industrial and
    strategical consulting, risk management, energy, renewable energy,
    communications, external affairs and in the defense sector…
    Being a part of a Multinational company, Seractus connects and represents
    different industrial sectors from Automotive to renewable energy…
    http://www.seractus.com/

  125. Steve from Rockwood says:

    @Gail.

    Cancer rates are a combination of diagnostic ability, diet, alcohol consumption and physical activity. It’s quite likely (can I say “very likely”) that diet is the most important factor. These all “favour” rich countries.

    WCRF state that the highest rates have been noted in ‘high-income countries’ and put this down to a variety of reasons; “This is likely to be partly because high-income countries are better at diagnosing and recording new cases of cancer. But a large part of the reason is also that high-income countries tend to have higher levels of obesity and alcohol consumption, and lower levels of physical activity.”

    Highest cancer rates:

    1. Denmark
    2. Ireland
    3. Australia

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops

    You can’t have a discussion about cancer in Texas without talking about the health (and weight) of the average Texan. Are they out hunting for their dinner on a horse with bow and arrow or riding into town in the F-150 headed for the local rib-shack for an all-u-can-eat fiesta?

  126. Bill Illis says:

    If you want to be involved in this debate, as in confronting the other side of the debate, you need to develop a thick skin, because there are insults and ad homs etc. coming from all sides.

    Those on the pro-AGW side, the greens, the enviros, are usually the worst at defaulting to insults and intimidation. It is what they are about when they don’t get their way, when someone disagrees with them But this is mainly because they are coming from an emotional-thinking base versus a logical-evidence-based-do-no-harm-first basis. Emotive thinking versus logical thinking.

    Thick skins people. Its usually a good trait to have. But there is always a possibility that it will come to a point when one needs to throw-down. Its usually good to be able to do that as well.

  127. CD (@CD153) says:

    Why do those young people in the video remind me of Jonestown and Branch Davidian cult members? (Young people are so naïve and gullible, aren’t they?)

    Why do 350.org, Greenpeace, the WWF and other eco-NGOs keep reminding me of the Jonestown and Branch Davidian cults?

    Why do Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Lord Deben, etc…keep reminding me of Jim Jones and David Koresh?

    Why do I keep thinking about that poisoned Kool-Aid at Jonestown?

    Why, whenever I’m arguing with a green eco-lefty, do I keep feeling like a religious heretic?

    Why…….

  128. Jer0me says:

    Personally I call BS on Gareth Phillips’ claimed lack of identity. I’ve searched the Web, and can’t find anything that appears to relate to the persona he claims, apart from the one he is being ‘accused’ of being.

    To be a “fairly prolific blogger on all shades of the climate debate” and have no trace on Google is quite an achievement.

    Gareth, I am sure you would not object these “prolific” blog posts being identified instead of your mysteriously private blog (although I respect that privacy). If so, could you let us see these posts, if for nothing else to stop the useless debate?

  129. pat says:

    9 Feb: Sun News, Canada: Ezra Levant: Charities have no place in Suzuki’s political theatre
    Last fall, three anti-oilsands lobby groups hosted the “Trial of Suzuki.” It was a strange gimmick — a mock trial wherein David Suzuki would be “prosecuted” for treason because of his environmentalist views…
    But why was this PR gimmick co-sponsored by the Royal Ontario Museum, a public institution using taxpayers’ money? The ROM is a non-political charity. Its mandate is to be educational, not political.
    It’s one thing for lobby groups to rent a room at the ROM to have their own event. But that didn’t happen. Suzuki’s lobby group, the $10-million-a-year David Suzuki Foundation, and another environmentalist group called the Ivey Foundation, and a foreign anti-oil lobby group called the Cape Farewell Foundation, got the room for free. More than that, they had the labour of a dozen ROM staff – paid for by taxpayers. And the ROM put their logo on the whole thing.
    Since when do museums take sides in ongoing political debates?…
    Who gets to choose the ROM’s political views?
    In this case, the answer is Dave Ireland and Bep Schippers. They’re global warming activists who work as executives at the ROM. According to ROM e-mails obtained by the Sun, last summer Ireland wrote an e-mail to Schippers showing her the proposal for the Suzuki stunt, saying: “hey Bep, in confidence, check this out… freakin cool idea… I agree with Suzuki’s manifesto.”
    Schippers wrote right back: “Hey Dave. Super freaking cool idea and we are going to make it happen no matter what. It’s the edgiest thing the ROM has been involved in since the history of the ROM and the only way we would be able to pull something like this off is with a partnership like this.” As in, to team up with three anti-oil lobby groups.
    Schippers was clearly aware that this was outside the ROM’s rules of partisanship: “It may be rocky – but totally worth it in the end. I’m willing to rock the internal boat on this one.”
    And here’s the exact moment when the ROM ceased to be a museum and officially became a partisan anti-oil lobby group:
    “We the ROM shouldn’t have to be neutral. We are allowed to take sides — it’s science man,” wrote Schippers…
    Free speech, right? But do taxpayers a favour – don’t make us pay for it through government

  130. Knutsfordian says:

    John Gummer (Lord Deben) may be a nutter but he was right about the Mad Cow Disease scare. This started in 1996 when Stephen Dorrell the then Secretary of State for Health stated that there might be a connection between new variant CJD and BSE which had been affecting Britains dairy herds. This statement set in train such hysteria that the the British beef industry was practically destroyed. All exports were banned and hundreds of thousands of cattle were slaughtered and burned. This scheme alone cost tax payers 4 billion pounds and wider damage by further regulations would cost billions more.

    Cristopher Booker on his book ‘Scared to Death’ wriote;
    ‘ In May 1997 after predicting that the number of deaths from vCJD could eventually rise to 500,000, Dr Pattison (Chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee) confessed that his epidemic was not going to take place after all. This extraordinary cimbdown attracted virtually no notice from the media’

    Sound famiiar?

  131. garymount says:

    I would like to ask American (U.S. of A) readers of this blog if you have heard murmurs of plans to escape the horrendous conditions of dry weather now being experienced in southern California by loading up vehicles with weapons and heading on down north to Canada?
    According to my The Vancouver Sun in an article in yesterdays paper, this is a real threat:
    http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Pete+McMartin+Climate+change+migration+adaptation/9483266/story.html
    My understanding is that Canada and the U.S.A does over a billion dollars a day of trade between our two countries. According to the article, you are going to slaughter your northern customers and take over our homes and farms and somehow fit 10 times the number of people into an area that only has one tenth of the infrastructure to support this influx of climate change refugees. Apparently the largest migration of people in history will take place, orders of magnitude larger than the entire world war 2 deployment of American troops to fight the war. Trillions and trillions of dollars will have to be expended to carry out this massive migration. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to spend a billion dollars or so and build a desalination plant instead of implementing plan F ?
    Or is this The Vancouver Sun writer an idiot, a typical warmist?

  132. Chris D. says:

    Masked intimidation is just the prelude. Have a look at what other like-minded people have been doing:

    http://earthfirstjournal.org/eco-prisoner-list/

  133. michael hart says:

    CD (@CD153) says:
    February 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    Why, whenever I’m arguing with a green eco-lefty, do I keep feeling like a religious heretic?

    In Lord Deben’s case, you are striking closer to the bone than you may realize.

  134. philjourdan says:

    The truth no longer matters. They are now trying to start a meme. At the risk of incurring Godwin’s law, that is what occurred with Krystal Nacht. The truth did not matter. The meme was all.

  135. Gail Combs says:

    garymount says: @ February 9, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    I would like to ask American (U.S. of A) readers of this blog if you have heard murmurs of plans to escape the horrendous conditions of dry weather now being experienced in southern California by loading up vehicles with weapons and heading on down north to Canada?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Why ever would I do that? I LEFT New Hampshire to get away from the cold and snow shoveling and relocated in North Carolina where it is a WARM, well mostly.

    As far as the Californians go, they want to BAN guns and the Texans are used to drought and innovative enough to put in desalinization plants if needed.

  136. Jer0me says:

    I find it difficult to understand why these people cannot understand that when they break the law, they will face the consequences. It is not a difficult concept. Just because they claim to be ‘saving the planet’ or any other cause, this does not give them the right to break laws with impunity.

    They then play the victim, and harass this guy to try to get him to pervert the course of justice (in itself a crime) to prevent the criminals who have been tried and found guilty by a jury of their own peers, to be released. It’s like arguing with children.

  137. leon0112 says:

    In reading the comments on various articles on climate issues around the internet, there are plenty of people who engage in uncivil debate…on both sides. Having said that, anyone who uses the term “d*nier” has absolutely no room to ask others to remain civil. Yes, that means you Lord Deben.

  138. The ones on the “left coast” of the U.S. A. will not go north.
    1. The goverment checks are issued and mailed in Calif.
    2. They think Canada is full of crazy hicks worse than the hicks in the U.S. South and Texas.
    3. Not enough surf.
    4. No movie stars.
    5. No kook University to be paid hack Climate Change PHD.
    6. The voter rolls are not stacked like they need.
    7. They will shoot up the locals first and take what they have before they even think of the trouble of going north.
    8. The Democrat Party will not give them a “vote release” to vote any where else.
    9. There are not enough cell phone towers to handle the “facebook post”.
    10. They know those in Canada are armed and know how to fire the guns.

  139. pat says:

    the url for the Ezra Levant/Sun News/ Suzuki piece which doesn’t seem to have gone through:

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/02/20140209-074950.html

  140. I have met the Gareth Phillips types back in the Greenpeace days.
    I know how to set them off and when I do they blow up and cause a real stink.
    Just let it smolder a bit, it will get bored and go away.

  141. bw says:

    Took about 60 seconds to find one list showing 133 “gareth phillips”
    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/?first=Gareth&last=Phillips

    As to the subject of this thread, I’ve been following the pipeline issue with interest for some time. My domicile near the proposed right-of-way allows easy access to a public library with a subscription to the Omaha World-Herald daily newspaper. For those seeking info on the pipeline before the issue became a national political farce/football, then I suggest a search starting about five years ago in that newspaper.
    There is nothing whatever of technical interest in the Keystone pipeline except that the enviros decided to pour their political capital into the issue, and that an aging multi-billionaire lives in Omaha. The aging billionaire purchased a large stake in the rail transportation industry that transports oil from canada to texas just before the already planned pipeline was about to be approved around 2010.
    It’s ironic that the enviros think that opposing the pipeline is “environmentally friendly” when rail tankers that already carry crude oil are causing far more damage and death than any pipeline would. Even if there were no rail accidents for 40 years, oil transport by pipeline is far more energy efficient than rail transport, so far less CO2 would end up in the atmosphere.

  142. On empty chairs and what Clint Eastwood said,,,
    We have a soon to be empty poster slot.
    How about a brief count.
    1. Al Gore
    2. John Kerry
    3. Bill Clinton
    4. Ms Clinton
    5. B. Obama

    How many of the lie a lot.
    How many vote for Climate Change weath redistribution.

  143. If any of the Endoftime Earth First or Greenpeace activist want to do the research they can check the public county records of Texas from the Red River south from Bonham Tx. to and through Delta County, Eastern Collin County, Eastern Rockwall County , central Kaufman County,, all the way to Harris county….
    The pipe line ROW’s are of record, the pipe line is being built this hour. Thousands of “Texans” are working at high pay as welders, dozer operators, back hoe operators, all of it , truck haulding the pipe, “Lone Star Steel Company” maf. the pipe.
    The next google map will show the Greenpeace fail.
    The next thing will be the lower gas price.
    The next thing will be the commie Democrats coming up with a new lie on the tax and spend redistribution endless train of lies.

  144. Pat Frank says:

    Gail, good point about cancer being a disease of the aged. Here’s a Texas cancer incidence map. Rates are higher in Texas than the US average — 441/100,000. Given the wide-open spaces of Texas, it would be hard to find a cause for the high rate in industrially polluted air. For example, on the map, the high-incidence area in East Texas includes several national parks and forests.

    Harris County, where Manchester Texas is located, next to Houston, is about average. One would surmise that the purported one extra cancer per year, from breathing the toxic-chemical-fouled air of Manchester, TX (Harris), is indistinguishable from noise. At that resolution, it looks like that kid doesn’t have a case.

    One might suspect the low child mortality in the US, relative to Afghanistan and other undeveloped areas, is the absence of enteric diseases due to the availability of clean water, and the prevalence of childhood vaccination, rather than to the rescue of weak babies.

  145. Pat Frank says:

    Ferdinand, your point is well-taken. Given the distribution of red areas in the Texas cancer incidence map, it would be hard to assign cancer rates to purely industrial pollution.

  146. Box of Rocks says:

    Pachygrapsus says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:46 am
    “….
    They threaten my employment, my family and my country from their Ivory Towers
    …”

    Too late. They are actively stripping wealth away from those who seek to eak out a living providing power to rest of humanity,

  147. Pat Frank says:

    garymount, as an almost-native Californian, I can certify Peter McMartin as a total nut-case. That’d be a nutter in Brit-land, and maybe a tool in Canadian.

    Even assuming he’s intelligent enough to put on his pants in the morning, all by himself, his article is fatuous.

  148. john robertson says:

    The behaviour of the protesters, in artfully arranging themselves outside a private citizens home, brannishing burning brands, masked and chanting threats.
    Tells me:
    They are not adults.
    Are not property owners.
    Have no children of their own.
    Otherwise they would have better sense and in fact should have feared the consequences of their stupid theatre.
    Put yourself in the homeowners place, can you see any rational for sympathy for any of these folk, who threaten your family and property?
    Most of us know fear does strange things to a persons reasoning, this kind of thing threatening my family, a mob of enviro-zombies, after dark, with torches, masked, extremely ugly,..
    I’m no longer trustful of police services, they are always minutes away when seconds count,we place more faith in oo buck.
    I am in awe of the reasoned and rational behaviour of this man.
    Stunning how dumb these protestors are,proudly posting, this little effort is even more of a home goal than the 10-10 foolishness.
    Any home-owner who watches their video, will be sick to their stomach.
    Any realist will know just how close to justifiable homicide these idiots were pushing the homeowner.

    I guess its true fools rush in where angels would fear to tread.
    If you recognize any of those useful idiots, perhaps you could contact their parents.
    Intervention is needed now, before some social studies professor gets them killed promoting its pet cause.
    Ideology, more deadly than drugs?

  149. JessicaJ says:

    They are incredibly crazy and stupid. Texas has the castle law – they’re going to get SHOT by someone. Their shooters won’t even face a courtroom – open and shut case.

  150. OssQss says:

    Tim Ball says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    Isn’t Lord Deben living proof of why the ordinary people wrote the Constitution and formed the United States?

    ——————————

    Yes! Spot on!

    And we are trying our darndest to keep the current admistration from undermining it with a pen and a phone and Chicago style politics…….

  151. William McClenney says:

    A few observations and a few thoughts on those observations. First, it is difficult not to understand why anyone would prefer not living next to large-scale industrial chemical complexes, including refineries. Although I agree that many such surrounding neighborhoods are often not upscale, I have indeed worked on such issues for almost 30 years now, including adjacent upscale neighborhoods. By far the higher frequency involves communities of lower even lowest incomes. This forms the basis of many environmental justice issues. I get this.

    I also get free speech and free association. Although I do not agree that bracing anyone at their home is an appropriate means of protest, I do get that this might be perceived by some as perhaps the only venue in today’s society.

    I also have no trouble understanding that this entire incident was organized and videographed with a definite intention to provide one side of what is obviously a complex argument. Meaning this was in no way an interrogatory.

    I first encountered Systemic Interruption Syndrome (Sisy – my definition) after migrating to Australia in 1989. It was a widespread cultural anomaly that consisted of interrupting someone, including if they were answering a question you had asked, and then talking right over them. It is a means of thrusting your views over anothers, and, if done with aplomb, is intended to provide a winning argument by paving over opposition essentially by bullhorn and gravitas.

    With or with aplomb and gravitas it always goes by the four-letter word known in civilized society as rude. And no, this was not a hit on my Aussie friends, I simply first noticed it here in an intense way. I have no idea where or when this behavior first became mainstream.

    Interrupting someone is rude. Continued/persistent rude behavior goes by the moniker of uncivilized. I have been known to point this out.

    A rapid immersion into this behavior made it quite easy to watch it develop here after I got back. It would appear to have evolved into one of the dominant means of efficient non-communication in the early 21st century (another dominant means of communication efficiency being represented by “f you like your health plan you can keep it, period” etc.) So, understanding that the maker(s) of the video wish to impart their philosophical bend, the value of uncivilized behavior dictates the promulgation of one side of a many-sided argument.

    Got it.

    The humor. “How did you get here” Maki asks. It’s a fair question. Perhaps that is why it got such short shrift. All-up I thought Maki did an admirable job, especially given the circumstances. I am also glad that whoever ladled whatever abuse on another did so only verbally. Otherwise uncivilized becomes barbaric.

    The real problem comes when we consider civilized, e.g. civilization. The Alberta Tar Sand bitumens are going to be burned. End of story. Get over it. Odds are the majority of it will get refined at gulf coast refineries, Chinese refineries, or any other destination where the cost of transport, refining and stability of supply make economic sense. Preventing that would take some remarkable protestations!

    Thinking about all that you soon arrive at a rather GLIB conclusion. What, on earth, would a GLacial Inception Barrier look like? Is anyone aware of anything we (meaning us) might be able to do to delay or contravene inception of the next glacial? Is there anything we could deploy, oh, in let’s say something like a few centuries, that could climatically compensate for say the onset speed of the next glacial:

    “This record also reveals that the transitions at the beginning and end of the interglacial spanned only ~100 and 150 years, respectively.” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/2/450.full

    Eliminating the pollutant CO2, and a partial precursor CH4, what might it be, precisely, that the present iteration of the genus Homo might employ to obviate the next glacial inception, whenever it comes due? So far, the only anti-glacial pro-biotic/climate steroid in the peer-reviewed “pipeline” are GhGs.

    The alternative is even more interesting. What if GHGs are the key?

    If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct, then that (meaning GHG emissions) is what we have been doing, for a large portion of the Holocene, and especially here at the half-precession cycle old Holocene, a.k.a. the so-called Anthropocene. Therefore it would be GHG emissions that have prevented glacial inception, for at least the past few thousand years!

    It quickly follows that removing the only hypothesized/theorized/known “warming enhancer”, climate-steroid, if you will, holds the potential for glacial inception?

    “Because the intensities of the 397kaBP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf

    It’s alright by this geologist if you plunk down either way. Emerging adolescence as perhaps one of the earliest eco-terrorists, friends and I got a mountain slated for mining incorporated as a park (near you Janice Moore:-)). I have explored for and found all but one energy mineral, coal. Not to mention precious and strategic minerals. The quarter-century plus after that all I have done is clean up the worst of the worst toxic cocktails we have ever generated. Which is what I wanted to do, and have done, for 2/3 of my career.

    Trust me, I do get it. All of it.

    Including the part when the next glacial does, eventually, get here. And how well adapted the teeming masses of modern humanity will be, this time around. A speciation level event? At some point, we will indeed see, won’t we? The last one happened in 150 years, or less…..

    Often, here at the supposed peak of solar cycle 24, I find it of value to contemplate the fascinating words of Sirocko et al (2005):

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/sirocko_seelos05.nat.pdf

    Begrudgingly, if you like your climate you might be able to keep it. The questions are over what period and, of course, how????? More power to you if you can incorporate the “to be burned” bitumen of the Alberta Tar Sands in your calculus.

  152. brent says:

    Global warming alarmists abusing our children
    The facts don’t support the propaganda environmentalists feeding our children
    By Elizabeth Nickson
    Last year, a high school teacher reported that during a visit from American anti-oil sands activist Bill McKibben, a frail girl with cerebral palsy stood up to say, “I am going to die young anyway, you make me think I should end my life sooner for the good of the planet.”
    As a new school year approaches, the drumbeat of doom targeting our children is increasing to war-cry proportions.
    It is Catastrophe Week on National Geographic TV, while its print cover story chronicles the ocean flooding up the Statue of Liberty’s chest. Time magazine’s cover shouts Bee Die-off to indicate the collapse of biodiversity.
    No doubt there is more to come, with the preferred target of the doomsters the eager young minds of our children. Perhaps this propaganda is the true climate crime
    http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4066416-global-warming-alarmists-abusing-our-children/

  153. Chad Woodburn says:

    I listen to the protestors and cannot identify with their values or mentalities. For example, when they say that trespassers who forced a shutdown of lawful construction should not be prosecuted, but that the company which testified against them is being mean, nothing in my values, principles, or philosophy empathizes with them.

  154. negrum says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    ” …One of the things I learned over many years in Psychiatry is that if delusions are challenged they can be re-enforced …”
    —-l
    I don’t think that statement is as effective on this blog as it would be when dealing with a patient. You might want to re-consider your strategy.

  155. Brad says:

    Richard,
    Nicely played…
    Maybe we should contact Sindicatum and let them know someone may be pretending to “not” be their Gareth Phillips?

    Just thinking out loud…

  156. Darren Potter says:

    JD twitted “Why are the climate naysyaers so personally unpleasant?”

    Cause for a decade we have had to put up with supercilious Climate Alarmsyaers like ManBearPig, MM HuckeySchticker, and NASA’s AstroArrestee.

  157. Chad Wozniak says:

    @philjourdan -
    Yes, the meme is all there is. To the ideologue, concepts like “true,” “false,” “fact,” “illusion,” “right” and “wrong” aren’t even irrelevant – they don’t exist. The meme, the dogma, is all there is. It’s rather like how there was no word for “bad” in Orwell’s Newspeak – there is only “ungood,”

  158. john robertson says:

    @Richard Courtney 3:36.
    Richard the moderation is playing hell with the conversation.
    My concern is, I do not think you give visitors here enough credit .
    Your comments have a history of content, some wit and wisdom.
    I pay attention as I have often learnt something of value from your comments.
    The character you are reacting to here, lacks these small details.
    As in many words….. zip for content.
    Perhaps a troll.
    Perhaps a zealot on the way out of the cult.
    But mostly seems to be talking to himself.
    I suspect, by the lack of bites, many visitors have reached their own conclusions.
    Unfortunately when you engage, I am forced to read the other fellows comments to make sense of yours.That kind of blather makes my head hurt.

  159. Tim Ball says: “Isn’t Lord Deben living proof of why the ordinary people wrote the Constitution and formed the United States?”
    You still got Nixon and Obama! Unfortunately, I am afraid politicians are all the same the world over.
    With regard to the debate about cancer. With tragic exceptions, cancer is a disease that mainly affects those aged over 60. Those living in a country where the average life expectancy is only 59 will not have many cancer sufferers, because most of the population die of other causes before they have had the opportunity to develop cancer.

    Lord Deben is a career politician, like all career politicians he does not have a clue what goes on in the real world. Hence the uninformed, ignorant remarks!

  160. BigFoot says:

    As a Canadian I am getting a little annoyed at all the American protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. There are currently 6 million bpd (barrels per day) of pipeline capacity being built now or planned in the USA. Keystone is only 800,000 of that. So why is it that the one pipeline that is crossing into Canada is being protested? Why aren’t other pipelines being protested? (Not that they should be). It seems like a lot of Screw Canada from the protesters.

    And now I think a lot of Canadians are starting to wake up to the hypocrisy (and there is a lot of it!) in these pipeline protests.

    Personally, I love my pipelines. There are twenty or more within walking distance of my house. Natural gas is keeping me nice and warm while it is -30 outside tonight.

  161. OLD DATA says:

    I live in a town where Atheist activists forbid our Nuns from praying over ashes of dead babies they’d carried back from the landfill. A few years later, those proud Atheists held three prayer vigils for one dead elk shot by an Atheist.

  162. OLD DATA says:

    Years ago a couple of enviro-arsonists ignited a residential complex with gasoline but had been caught on tape. Their attorney suggested they take the ‘just had an abortion’ defense and it worked well.

  163. JamesD says:

    It will be fun once construction starts. Pipeliners are a pretty wild bunch. I doubt these fruitcakes show up out in the wilderness with a bunch of working pipeliners.

  164. Bill from Nevada says:

    [snip - more slayers junk - mod]

  165. rtj1211 says:

    The Guardian Newspaper ran an article yesterday, and I quote:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/09/flood-defences-ukowen-paterson-new-funding

    ‘Worse, Paterson’s scepticism on climate change – a ludicrous trait in an environment secretary..’

    Note how an unelected scribbler called Damian Harrington presumes to have the power, authority and wisdom to determine ACCEPTABLE (not desirable, note) traits in a senior government official. I wasn’t aware that this non-entity of a journalist, whose writings have barely been seen in the past 3 years, was a senior Constitutional Expert hired by Her Majesty to Queen to arbitrate (even that would be rather contentious nowadays in our constitutional monarchy), let alone having being hired by Sir Jeremy Heyward (Secretary to the Cabinet Office aka the most senior civil servant in the land) to do likewise………..

    That newspaper continuously allows offensive journalists and bloggers to spout froth, so long as it is pro global warming, pro feminist-supremicist agendas and pro-socialism. It immediately cracks down on anyone who writes dissenting opinion and claims that ‘their voice doesn’t respect others’. What they mean is, it doesn’t fit into Chairman Mao’s acceptable range of conversation. The levels of insults are similar to the sorts of things you publish here and anyone can go and read at the site http://www.theguardian.com will find copious examples of it.

    Of course, you will find other sites which go equally far the other way. http://www.telegraph.co.uk and http://www.spectator.co.uk will find bloggers and, to a lesser extent, journalists, who express strident, totalitarian and pretty aggressive derogatory opinions about those with whom they disagree.

    All those communities are closed, bigoted, prejudiced, self-reinforcing communities of hatred.

    You need to be a very mature negotiator not to lose your temper trying to engage with them.

    Difficulty is, there are so few places to engage where measured discussion is the rule of the game.

    One of the reasons I come to this site………..

  166. Bill from Nevada says:

    [snip - more slayers junk - mod]

  167. Jack Cowper says:

    Deben has frequently used the ‘D’ word. He also has green business interests, check out Bishop Hill for details. A rather unpleasant man and he is most famous in the UK for beef burgers.

  168. goldminor says:

    rtj1211 says:
    February 10, 2014 at 12:02 am

    Difficulty is, there are so few places to engage where measured discussion is the rule of the game.

    One of the reasons I come to this site………..
    ———————————————————-
    My first four years of commenting, about 6,700 comments, was spent mainly at Newsvine.com. I rarely ever go there anymore. I distinctly remember the change in the tone of the debate, and just which side it was that was generating all of the negative, attack comments. It wasn’t the skeptics who started that. What choice is left to the ‘true climate denier’, the AlGore warmist type, other than to continue with more of the same.

    I have enjoyed commenting at the Telegraph over the last several years. Early on, I left a comment at their site saying ‘how nice it was to have a civil discourse’. There is some sparring back and forth between some of the regulars, but the tone remains within reason. At sites like msnbc, newsvine, or similar venues, the rabid bloggers are fully entrenched. There is no pretense of discussing the storyline. It is all attack, day after day by the same people, who make the same comments over and over and over………….!

  169. DirkH says:

    garymount says:
    February 9, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    “I would like to ask American (U.S. of A) readers of this blog if you have heard murmurs of plans to escape the horrendous conditions of dry weather now being experienced in southern California by loading up vehicles with weapons and heading on down north to Canada?”
    “Or is this The Vancouver Sun writer an idiot, a typical warmist?”

    The plot makes no sense. If Californians were about to head north in search of water they would cross Washington; that should be wet enough for anyone.

  170. MONEY, Money turns peoples personalities – follow the money.

    Let us start with Lorn Deben himself: http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83087 It looks like this man, and his family, is driven by money making out of green projects. Take his words with spoonfuls of salt.

    It is not just Lord Deben. Is Mann’s personal behaviour about science, reputation or money? It is hard to disentangle?

    Green money is twisting peoples personalities in a big way. And it turns people on all levels of society, including at local level.

    In our locality their are greedy people who want wind turbines because they can become instantly rich for no work. In one case the promoters are building their turbines right next to the stables of a equestrian centre where the break in highly strung thoroughbreds. An activity that needs calm surroundings without distractions. Before they found out about the money to be made from turbines they were well thought of in the neighbourhood, now they are pariahs who will break their neighbours business in order to get at the cash on offer (profits calculated at about 10 – 20 million pounds over a period of 20 year).

    There is more money to be made from being green than sceptic. The green movement has attracted the wrong sorts of people into their ranks.

  171. Julian Flood says:

    Lord Gummer,

    Last week we defeated an application for a wind turbine by Ladygate, the end of months of hard work, meetings, letters and emails by the people of Haverhill. The process has been made extremely difficult by you and politicians like you. You have ignored the questionable science, forced through unrealisable targets and ignored the democratic process. In spite of that we won a battle, the battle of the little people against those who have embraced a fashionable and profitable cause which, by coincidence I’m sure, has given you — and Mr Yeo — political prominence and riches.

    When UKIP tabled an anti-AGW motion at Suffolk County Council in December we caused outrage: it was inconceivable that we could doubt the consensus, that we could question the pronouncements which people like Dame Julia Slingo make ex cathedra to the doubting masses. You are enough of a practical politician to know Mencken’s dictum, but I’m pleased to tell you that it looks as if the chihuahua of doom (look it up, it’s on my facebook page) is losing its potency.

    Your son inherited a parliamentary seat on the basis that he was… well, your son. Tell him to have a chat to Matthew Hancock and whoever is selected to Mr Yeo’s seat. Tell him that we’re after them all.

    The most sobering part of the induction process on becoming a county councillor was the briefing about duty of care. We, I, have a duty of care to the vulnerable. Your wind turbines, your renewable obsessions are killing the old and the poor and the sick. As I have told Matthew Hancock, he is playing Russian roulette with his career — the party in power when the lights begin to go out will be rejected by the electorate for a generation. This winter has been mild. If next winter is cold, and the power stations continue to go off the Grid, we will see more deaths caused by the renewable subsidies forced onto peoples’ bills than from road traffic accidents. Does a noble lord have no duty of care? Does an MP?

    Watch your six, my lord. UKIP is out to get your son and those like him who espouse the AGW consensus. It is our duty..

    JF
    The Fenbeagle cartoon for the Chihuahua of Doom is worth seeing.

  172. garymount says:

    I would like to thank all those who have responded to my inquiry. Its reassuring to know that it continues to rain at least occasionally outside of the political borders surrounding the southern half of California. I used to often see reports of flooding in Texas. Way back in the 80s when a group of Texans were training at our facilities for operating and maintaining a tourist submarine for someplace in Indonesia, I became tuned in to Texas related culture. I fondly remember the one Texan we nick named “the round mound of sound”. So anyways, flooding in Texas seemed to be such a common occurrence to me I wondered why it kept being reported over the years. Nowadays I see all extreme weather reports as part of an agenda, and so it goes, by jaundiced eye.
    And its true, we Canadians do have guns. I was trained to use military weapons when I was 17 including how to use a machine gun, while in the reserves, based out of the Royal Westminster Regiment in New Westminster, B.C. Good times, lots of marching and even beer, but don’t tell anybody ;-) privileges of service.
    Note my inquiry was not serious, I just wanted to highlight the silly types of articles one often reads coming out of the left coast of Canada.
    I enjoyed observing people browsing the notice board at the coffee shop today where I had put a copy of Christopher Monckton of Brenchley’s 17 year 5 month no global warming chart. I shall continue the experiment throughout this year with a planned 100 location placement throughout my bicycle riding / coffee shop excursions which have been known to span as far as 50 kilometers away.
    I’ve been following this Deben character on twitter for a few months, and always enjoy his tweets. His tweets are like hearing something cute my nieces might say, and I get a good laugh.

  173. Gail Combs says:

    Gareth Phillips says: @ February 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    ” …One of the things I learned over many years in Psychiatry is that if delusions are challenged they can be re-enforced …”
    —-l
    negrum says: @ February 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm
    “I don’t think that statement is as effective on this blog as it would be when dealing with a patient. You might want to re-consider your strategy.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I think Gareth is talking about himself and the Earth First criminals.

  174. Gail Combs says:

    Brad says: @ February 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    Richard,
    Nicely played…
    Maybe we should contact Sindicatum
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There are several other “Gareth Phillips in the UK so don’t jump the gun.

  175. Randle Dewees says:

    Perhaps you would be willing
    (a) to explain why you did not correct Randle Dewees despite all the comments on that thread which mentioned the information?
    and

    Richard, concerning point (a) Gareth did respond to my question pretty quickly. I was gone for quite a while after posting it and it took on a life of it’s own.

    I don’t debate online, too much energy required, and obviously I’m not at my computer enough! Many of the regulars here do a better job of presenting my views then I could – Rgbatduke, for example.

    I thought I found a piece of interesting info, and presented it, along with some opinion. But my guess was wrong – Gareth states he’s not the “Sindicatum Gareth”, and doesn’t have an obvious financial or professional interest in this fight.

    I’ve since stated I absolutely disagree with his premise that something is “wrong” with the climate. And more so with the notion that – even if something was wrong – we could do something about it. I’ve my reasons for my position, based on my education in physical science, my career in science, and my political perspective – somewhat conservative and old enough to be absolutely skeptical of something so obviously built on systematic propaganda and manipulation.

    I’ve no idea why Gareth hangs with all this. Surely he doesn’t think his arguments go very far? I’ve concluded he is just one of those arguers that won’t give up. He even stated he enjoys the fight.

    Now, hopefully, this thing I started misidentifying Gareth is put to rest. And I’m going back to lurker mode

  176. Ric Werme says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:30 am

    Gareth Phillips:

    Indeed, I think it likely that the response you say you obtain is universal when people discover you are a shill employed to spread disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Carbon Trading industry. People may want to see this link which – by the way – has a nice photo of you
    http://www.sindicatum.com/author/gareth-phillips/

    While I hate me too posts, I hate it even more when they seem to be warranted.

    Check out

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/09/black-swans-dispatches-from-the-front-line-of-climate-change/#comment-1562914

    While you’re over there, I suspect few people have seen my comment, Gareth seems to have been around here annoying people for a while.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/09/black-swans-dispatches-from-the-front-line-of-climate-change/#comment-1562948

  177. Gail Combs says:

    BigFoot says: @ February 9, 2014 at 9:57 pm

    As a Canadian I am getting a little annoyed at all the American protests of the Keystone XL pipeline….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Not half as annoyed as the sane Americans who realize Keystone XL pipeline means jobs, not only directly but because CHEAP ENERGY = JOBS.

    Obama said “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,…Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” And that is exactly what will happen SOON.

    In Ohio, where the most coal fired plants are slated to close electricity rates for new capacity will “skyrocket” from $16 per megawatt (2012) to $357 per megawatt (2015) in the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy and $136 to $167 per megawatt elsewhere.

    Coal fueled 78 percent of Ohio’s net electricity generation in 2011, nuclear energy contributed 11 percent. Up to 1/3 of the nuclear in the USA may also be closed so northern Ohio is in for a heck of a big surprise in a few years. (If you live in Ohio, MOVE NOW before your property is worth less than it is in Detroit.)

    As we have seen in the EU when prices of energy, regulation and labor skyrocket business walks to a more friendly environment like China or India.

    And speaking of regulations Federal regulations have lowered real GDP growth by 2% per year since 1949 and made America 72% poorer

    Not to mention Obama’s push to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 this will just about double the minimum wage making US labor that much more uncompetitive with China and even Mexico.
    The federal minimum wage in Jul 24, 2007 was $5.85. It was raised to $6.55 in Jul 24, 2008 and raised again to $7.25 in July 24, 2009. (There is already reverse immigration happening as jobs move to Mexico and dry up in the USA.)

    Meanwhile the USA lost 6.5 million jobs from Dec 2007 to October 2011. link and the real unemployment including ‘discourged workers’** is around 24%.

    **Those who haven’t found a job but have been out of work for over a year and thus fell of the US government radar.

  178. Ric Werme says:

    Randle Dewees says:
    February 10, 2014 at 5:20 am

    Perhaps you would be willing
    (a) to explain why you did not correct Randle Dewees despite all the comments on that thread which mentioned the information?

    He did, see above.

    When I’m expecting a response I’ll often search the comments for my name or his name. Please don’t follow up accusations with another accusation until you do some better research.

  179. Gail Combs says:

    Ecoloons and other criminals in government have caused greater damage to their countries than an invading force. At least with an invading force you know there is an enemy. With this destruction of the country from within all you have is the creeping destruction and a Tar Baby.

  180. M Courtney says:

    Ric Werme, I think you have misunderstood the post by Randle Dewees. The part you quote was a direct quotation by Randle Dewees of RichardsCourtney. He just forgot to use blockquotes.

    In context Randle Dewees writes:

    Perhaps you would be willing
    (a) to explain why you did not correct Randle Dewees despite all the comments on that thread which mentioned the information?
    and

    Richard, concerning point (a) Gareth did respond to my question pretty quickly. I was gone for quite a while after posting it and it took on a life of it’s own.

  181. richardscourtney says:

    Randle Dewees:

    Thankyou for your post at February 10, 2014 at 5:20 am.

    I agree much of what you say. And I, too, have dropped the matter of GP’s identity but for the reason put by Gail Combs in the post above yours. However, I am grateful that you raised the issue which I think to be VERY important. Indeed, possible attempted subversion of WUWT is directly pertinent to the subject of this thread which is about suppression of AGW dissent.

    We do have some disagreement.
    I remain to be convinced of the matter one way or the other.
    This is despite that our host has informed us that GP is based in Wales. Modern electronic communications would not require GP’s constant attendance in London and the M4 enables a visit to London and return within a day for attendance of business meetings.

    My reasons for continued doubt are several. Firstly, GP did NOT make a clear rebuttal of the suggestion, and with his track record of mendacity a rebuttal would not have been conclusive. Secondly, he refuses to answer the question from Michael Moon on the other thread and the question repeatedly put to him by clipe on this and the other threads. This implies that his background is not what he claims it is: one could anticipate that he would want to demonstrate basic knowledge of his claimed profession and would want to cite some of the papers he claims to have published. Thirdly, he has been evasive about everything, and this is most clearly seen in his responses to questions about his blog.

    But the matter has to be left unresolved. And – as you say – it does not alter the realities of the science.

    Richard

  182. negrum says:

    Gail Combs says:
    February 10, 2014 at 4:37 am

    ” … I think Gareth is talking about himself and the Earth First criminals.”
    —-l
    If so, then my mistake. However, I drew my inference from the whole sentence, which reads:
    ” … But you seemed to be determined to conflate me with another chap. One of the things I learned over many years in Psychiatry is that if delusions are challenged they can be re-enforced, so once I had pointed out I was not this man I refrained on debating the issue with you. … ”

    That seemed to be addressed to the person he referred to as motormouth. There are better ways to convince a skeptic.

  183. CaligulaJones says:

    Here in Canada, a blogger has been keeping track of the watermelons (it should not surprise anyone that there is a tremendous overlap with the Occupy/anarchist movement – and in Canada, at least, the militant native community):

    genuinewitty dot com

  184. Ric Werme says:

    M Courtney says:
    February 10, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Ric Werme, I think you have misunderstood the post by Randle Dewees. The part you quote was a direct quotation by Randle Dewees of RichardsCourtney. He just forgot to use blockquotes.

    Oops, I was reading too quickly – I had 1.5″ of new snow on my driveway to deal with.

    Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

  185. Dudley Horscroft says:

    dbstealey says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:47 am
    ———-
    “Because so far, there is no scientific evidence that I can find to support the alarmist crowd’s belief in runaway global warming or climate catastrophe. There is really no such evidence at all.”

    There is, and can be, no such evidence as it is a logical impossibility. At one time all the carbon dioxide sequestrated in the limestone, chalk and marble rocks was in the atmosphere, before the diatoms and foraminifera turned it into their skeletons, died, and it became rock. Similarly all the carbon in coal, oil and gas came from carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere by trees and other plants.

    Now, before the trees created the coal, and the diatoms and foraminifera created the chalk and limestone, all that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere, and the temperature did not reach a tipping point – though it may have been rather warmer than at present. Even so, that higher temperature DID NOT destroy life!

    There was no runaway global warming. There was no climate catastrophe.

  186. Brad says:

    Gail,
    No accusations intended, simply asking questions to get a better understanding. (Along with a little levity.)
    What would any of us do if someone came on board having our same name and expressed an opposite opinion in a non-beneficial manner?

    As for Washington: the eastern half is much different than the western half, both in climate and politics. The local joke up here back in the late 80′s was “Don’t Californicate Washington”. They were coming up with lots of real estate money and raising housing prices.

  187. mike says:

    An American blog commentary on a Brit-aristocrat’s made-only-more-telling-by-its-understatement, fuss-budget, world-weary distaste for “unpleasantness”?–I kinda think we have a clash of cultures here.

    The Brit style is to reduce the peasantry to a complacent, docile, disarmed, cowed, coolie-trash plasticity, so easily molded, that even goof-ball, milquetoast, silly-goose put-down boogers, like “headless chickens” and references to “ostriches” and heads in the sand (I’m looking at you Deben, ol’ buddy, with that last), delivered in a plummy accent and aimed along the sight-lines of a raised, noble nose, are sufficient to get the Brit helots all a-hustle forking over their hard-earned tax-dollars to serve the trough-needs of their lord and masters. A system with a lot to recommend it if you’re a top-predator parasite in on the deal. And, of course, the best thing about the whole set-up is that the “beautiful people”, with the privileged perches, never have to LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!–THEY NEVER HAVE TO PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!.

    But on the other side of the pond, the American riff-raff, unspeakably-vulgar, fuck-you!, hoi-polloi nobodies are all sassy and salty. And so when some pompous-ass, Brit slicko (no, I’m not talkin’ about you, Deben, but you know the guys I mean), decked-out in exquisitely-tailored, British woolens (especially if the weirdo also sports some sort of fruit-loop, chi-chi ascot, for Pete’s sake!), in all his privileged-white-dork, carbon-piggie hypocrite-magnificence, polluting the very atmosphere we must all breathe with his in-bred, cretinous superior airs, shows up to lend a hand to the local-yokel big-shots’ efforts to pick the American peon’s tax-payer pocket through Lysenko-science, eco-scares, and the say-so of authority figures with a medieval sense of claim on their lessers’ deference, there is a shock to our Brit patrician’s feudal frame of cultural reference when the Yankee-Doodle, useless-eater nobodies push back with a tart, “Keep your hands to yourself and off my wallet, you hive-bozo asshole!”

    Like I said, it’s a “cultural” thing.

  188. James at 48 says:

    Was he alluding to Lord Monckton’s letter?

  189. dbstealey says:

    Randle says:

    “I’ve no idea why Gareth hangs with all this. Surely he doesn’t think his arguments go very far?”

    Gareth is not here to argue facts. Gareth is here because he just loves to have lots of comments about… Gareth.

    It is pure ego. Of course Gareth will never debate facts, because he has no credible facts to contribute [there's a challenge for you, G].

    He likes to play footsie with comments like:

    “ask me a straight question and I will give you a straight answer. Over to you.

    But Gareth will never give a straight answer, as all of his comments prove. Being straight with people is not a part of what Gareth is. The alarmist crowd has lots of Gareths.

    If I am wrong about this, then Gareth will debate scientific evidence with us. He would give his reasons why he opposes the KLX pipeline. I would enjoy that, and maybe I would learn something.

    But it is not to be. This thread is all about the insufferable Gareth, not about scientific evidence. That is exactly the way Gareth wants it to be, as he demonstrates repeatedly.

  190. goldminor says:

    DirkH says:
    February 10, 2014 at 2:55 am
    —————————————
    If you drew a line from San Francisco than east to Sacramento and the Sierra Nevada mountains, then you would find that most of the 37+ million Californians live south of that line. Many who live in No California would like to see this state split in half along that line. Northern California is sparsely populated and only receives the leftovers from the state coffers. There just isn’t enough voters in the north for Sacramento to be concerned about. It has been that way for a long time.

  191. Darren Potter says:

    BigFoot says: “As a Canadian I am getting a little annoyed at all the American protests of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

    You are lucky! Those American Keystone XL protestors could be in Canada protesting.
    Want, we will gladly ship’em up North. ;)

  192. john robertson says:

    @Darren Potter 12:59,
    Please do, just have the charter flight drop them off at Coats Island, assure them that the press and refreshments will land in 3/4 of an hour, then take off.
    For further entertainments perhaps an unmanned camera platform can fly overhead filming their “experience”.

  193. Hot under the collar says:

    Re: the identity of ‘Gareth Phillips’
    Although his identity is at question. One thing not at question is his ‘politeness’ (or more to the point – his lack of it); “eyesonu” pointed out where Gareth Phillips had previously used the “See you next Tuesday” ‘metaphor”

    “eyesonu says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:23 am
    ….. “I suspect a persons attitude on a given subject owes more to their own personality than the subject in hand, and such people tend to express unresolved anger through the medium of the debate. ” …..
    =============
    Your closing and final words on a previous post on WUWT Friday, Feb 7 was quote: ….” See you next Tuesday.” It was related to your use of metaphors. Are you a couple of days early or did it reflect an expression of unresolved anger?
    Google search: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=See-you-next-Tuesday
    See You Next Tuesday
    A clandestine method of calling someone a cunt.
    Particularly effective when used prior to a three day week end.
    C: See
    U: You
    N: Next
    T: Tuesday
    Perhaps you really meant to return to that thread in a couple more days, maybe.”

    Gareth Phillips reply was;

    “Gareth Phillips says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm
    eyesonu says:
    February 9, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    Hi Eyesonu, thanks for the explanation. New one on me, but very enlightening, I will note that for future reference. Sadly many people are conflating my identity with some other chap employed by the EU. This looks to be more of the same. I’m beginning to feel like an international man of mystery! Maybe a look at the thread leading up to that comment may shed some light on the subject ? I am also in an important meeting a few hundred miles away on Tuesday so I doubt I will have time to blog, but I will try though it’s likely to be late. In the meantime I shall try and refrain from calling you next thursday or discussing climate yearly national trends. Cheers G”

    Now if you read the actual comment eyesonu referred to;

    “Gareth Phillips says:
    February 7, 2014 at 12:13 pm
    eyesonu says:
    February 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    rgbatduke says:
    February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
    =================
    Excellent comment as usual.
    Gareth Phillips has much to think about now. I don’t believe he is ignorant as he post a great metaphor for Father Earth to be affected by CO2 in the same way a man would be affected by Vi@gra provided that metaphor was intentional. On the other hand he may have drank too much Koolaide during his indoctrination to the school of CAGW. Either way the Vi@gra ad/metaphor was most eloquent.
    Hey Joscyn, who mentioned Viagra? Not me, and if you could stop fantasising about erect members for just one moment and focus on the debate you may even be able to follow it. By the way, look up the meaning of metaphors, I suspect you have misinterpreted what I say, then again …………………… Call You Next Tuesday !”

    Yes, thanks for that Gareth Phillips, whoever you are. I did read the rest of the thread referred to, it did shed some light on it. Your constant deflection and underhand unpleasantness ‘lights you up’ as a particularly ignorant and unpleasant troll.

  194. Doubting Rich says:

    Reading Deben’s Twitter feed I cannot believe the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man. He is the one refusing to argue but resorting to abuse and innuendo in his tweets. He complains about politicising the flooding in between tweets using it to attack UKIP by lying about their position (they dispute CAGW, not climate change).

  195. highflight56433 says:

    “Why are the climate naysayers so personally unpleasant? In no other issue do dissenters so quickly turn from argument to abuse and innuendo”

    Consider it another example of the CAGW crowd who has abused the English language as a tool to demonize others…yet being simultaneously so correct in all things seems a contradiction. Immediately one sees the terminology used to demonize all and any who question their closed mind set. It is seen everyday, a relentless attack on the person, rather than the idea or argument.

    So, as soon as there is a sense of their pending explosion of accusation, I go on the offense. Their face shows dismay, they attempt a retort, but find themselves quickly cut off. I see no reason to be civil to a person who freely without thought of consequence lashes demonizing accusations at the person. Sorry … but no mercy given. May their soul descend to its’ proper place.

  196. Little known factoid:

    Michael Mann’s death trains:

    I didn’t realize it until a few weeks ago when I saw some “protestors” arguing against allowing coal trains fom the US coming in to Canada to ship power grade coal from Robert’s Bank coal port in British Columbia. Canadian coal shipped is mostly metallurgical grade coal. It seems that the US does not have any coal shipping facilities on the west coast, so all of the “death trains” of coal that Obama’s buddy, Warren Buffet ships west is going to a Canadian coal port. At the same time he is shipping oil by rail south while Obama prognosticate over the KXL pipeline. Delicious irony. / sarc off?

  197. John Deere Green says:

    You’ve got people claiming they think the earth otherwise heated with full sunlight in vacuum, got hotter, once a cold nitrogen oxygen envelope was put around it, than in vacuum alone: that’s impossible absurdity of itself.
    Then you have the same people making the claim they think blocking a fifth of the sunlight to surface sensors, made more heat register on them, than when there was more energy.

    It was obviously hoodoo and falsehood built on falsehood, from the first word to the last one.

  198. Media Exposure Isnt Science says:

    This is why the people running the scam sought out and secured allies in the anti science push, to help the quiet people who repeatedly observed the entire AGW scientific base is built on make believe.
    The government employees can only speak as government employees: when they enlist the help of private citizens in media it makes it look more ”accepted” than if the misinformation about their scheme to simply overthrow the rule of physical, scientific, thermodynamical laws.

    Anyone who helps or helped spread it deserves the derision they get for ever having helped.

    Government employees couldn’t have spread this scam if enablers in media hadn’t helped them.
    highflight56433 says:
    February 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    “Why are the climate naysayers so personally unpleasant? In no other issue do dissenters so quickly turn from argument to abuse and innuendo”

    Consider it another example of the CAGW crowd who has abused the English language as a tool to demonize others…yet being simultaneously so correct in all things seems a contradiction. Immediately one sees the terminology used to demonize all and any who question their closed mind set. It is seen everyday, a relentless attack on the person, rather than the idea or argument.

    So, as soon as there is a sense of their pending explosion of accusation, I go on the offense. Their face shows dismay, they attempt a retort, but find themselves quickly cut off. I see no reason to be civil to a person who freely without thought of consequence lashes demonizing accusations at the person. Sorry … but no mercy given. May their soul descend to its’ proper place.

  199. Media Exposure Isnt Science says:

    Consider the claim about how ”the science is settled.”

    CAGW believers have never even put forth a supposition which can be experimentally verified.

    It isn’t science when someone tells you they discovered civilization is going to end

    because of outlandish properties
    by some tiny percent of the atmosphere,
    but there’s no way to check if they’re wrong
    no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong.

    It’s nothing more than the equation of having won a public relations media war

    with having won the actual scientific war, while never even entering testable science.

  200. WetMan says:

    The Naysayer is one of my favorite characters. Big guy, huge sword.
    You just need to ask him the right questions.
    Such as “Should we allow these people to bankrupt western civilization and cause widespread famine in Afrika based on zero evidence?”

  201. philjourdan says:

    @Gail Combs

    relocated in North Carolina where it is a WARM, well mostly.

    How’s that warm doing for you today and tomorrow? ;-)

  202. stewgreen says:

    Maybe Deben doesn’t run his own twitter account
    - Only by terms the nature of the tweets it looks to me that like Obama ..some junior activists are really doing the tweeting

  203. Gail Combs says:

    philjourdan says: @ February 11, 2014 at 8:39 am

    @Gail Combs

    relocated in North Carolina where it is a WARM, well mostly.

    How’s that warm doing for you today and tomorrow? ;-)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I have to go out and break the ice on the stock tanks and give the sheep and goats warm water – while not killing myself walking on the inch of ice left overnight on the shoveled porch and sidewalk. GRUMBLE snarl.

    This is the most snow I have seen here since we moved twenty years ago, BTW.

Comments are closed.