Monday Mirthiness – The climate intolerance platform

Josh writes on Twitter::

A riposte to hilarious letter in Graun from intolerant alarmists.  … Even funnier, says Porrit works for Palm Oil industry clearing forests.

Here is an excerpt of the letter in the Guardian:

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.

Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate.

What they seem to miss is that few if any sceptics disbelieve that climate change is real; the real question is what portion of it is caused by man’s activities. Even 30 years later, scientists still have not nailed down the absolute value of climate sensitivity, and it remains quite uncertain.

Happy to oblige:


122 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness – The climate intolerance platform

    • Oh yes, next they will clearly Not Tolerate anyone who claims that there are only 2 genders, since clearly there are 3, or maybe 7, or maybe however many anyone’s feelz tell them there are on any given day. But we will tolerate no more discussion on that point!

        • MarkW,
          Please, 58. Those of us that are sexually attracted to left-handed sprocket wrenches are a distinct gender. And by the way, we insist on our own pronouns, which of course are zhing, whang, and b’dong.

          • Roger Graves

            I’m a tartan paint man myself.

            OK, OK……..I’m now stigmatised and I don’t even have a ‘safe place’.

          • Now the question is….
            Is the left-hand sprocket wrench for doing up or undoing? People are going to want to know.
            Josh another great cartoon and can I reserve 2 calendars early to avoid the rush later?

            James Bull

        • MarkW

          Doubtless 97% of the population are gender confused, according to the 3% of normal people, who are of course alarmist climate scientists. They are of course completely normal.

          • No, that is the number of states you have to campaign in to win the presidency in the U.S. Oops, make that 58, the lightworker had one more to do. 57 was close though.

        • “I thought Facebook gave you 57 choices for gender?”

          Gender? Or Sex? Not the same thing.

      • It’s assuming that they don’t tolerate those who say something but can’t agree on the real answer:

        – Trump conspired with Putin. They were involved for many years, probably communicating secretly. They have deep links. Trump Tower computer was sending “pings” to Alfa Bank for that reason. We have unquestionable DNS evidence of that whose interpretation just requires tea leafs reading and whose origin is totally legit and secret (and data from Internet vigilants is totally legit please don’t question it vigilantism is fine when it involves tapping Internet providers also we hate the NSA). Trump was receiving Russian intel obtained by hacking to election officials (voter rolls contains secret information that allows you to win an election by micro-targeting Facebook ads with Jesus Christ doing arm wrestling, anyone who disagrees is probably a Russian troll). Or maybe Trump accepted that a meeting with a Russian lawyer happened. Or maybe Trump wanted to established a secret encrypted communication link during the transition period, because that’s what conspirators do after the conspiration is effectuated. Well, at some point they conspired. Anyone who disagrees is a pro-Putin pro-Trump shill.
        – For some weird reason, Ukraine used a Su-25, a ground attack/antitank plane analog of the Warthog as an high altitude interceptor to attack a plane that was flying too high and used a canon with moderate velocity rounds to attack a plane that was flying too high. There is radar as well as material evidence of that in the debris. Anyone who disagrees is an anti-Russian pro-Ukraine pro-America shill. Also the Soviet era BUK ground to air missile system was used by Ukraine. Anyone who disagrees is an anti-Putin shill.

        Western liberal discourse is exactly as dumb and sad as Russian sovietoid nationalist discourse. The liberal West went Soviet, Putin gov-like.

        Which is going to get complicated because they hate GMOs and Monsanto and hate Putin’s government which rejects GMOs and Monsanto.

        So, invest in the psycho healthcare industry.

          • that was his point…thered be damned little if anything the medias spewing that ISNT nonsense.
            Im waiting for clinton to be in an orange onesie ..if there WAS any justice

          • The sad thing is that, these days, you can only BE about 80% certain – even when confronted with what should be obvious absurdity.

          • Unfortunately, given the posters rather eclectic viewpoints, 80% might be a little on the generous side. I’d say there’s only a 50-50 chance.

    • There’s a book on it.
      Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965)
      It’s the blue print for the left’s current version of “tolerance.

    • Yes now they don’t just want to shut down skeptics of vaccines, they want to sue them for the virtual harm caused by not being vaccinated.

      And even so called French traditional liberal-conservatives/libertarians of seem to accept these arguments.

      So much for “free speech”.

  1. The climate is changing. We’ll figure out how to adapt to it. The people saying that fossil fuel burning is the sole cause, and with de-carbonization, we can fix our climate in its current state, or restore it to its 1970 state, or its 1770 state, or whenever it was “ideal” are lunatics.

    • Whatever the ultimate effect of humanity’s existance on any element of the environment turns out to be, the no-brainer approach SHOULD obviously be to adapt rather than attempt to assume control.

      • Your last word is the final purpose, however. Remember, climate change is now, will be in the future and will ALWAYS be about control and power.

  2. At least they’re consistent – they fictionalize/exaggerate everything. They also create non-existent “heavilly financed” skeptics and then claim skepticism equates to complete denial.
    True followers of the master liar – Al Gore.

  3. “Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests.”

    Fits the people who wrote the letter. All of them depend on funding by groups with a vested interest in denying that climate change is natural and suppressing all evidence that man made CO2 has little effect.

  4. The reason that they don’t want to discuss the justification for their proposed climate policies is that they know they will lose the debate.

    With Trump in the White House, the Paris agreement collapsing and Climate Change being bottom of the priority list for the public in every survey… they have every reason to want to defend their views. Their views have already lost the political debate.

    But they know they can’t win the scientific debate either. The Hypocrites.

  5. “Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense.” When you start from a foundation of Computer Model Science with little basis in reality, as it consistently gets it wrong which makes it in and of itself SPIN and NONSENSE, any science is a challenge.

    • – We win answer any questions about climate science.
      – How do you kn…
      – We won’t take questions. You only do spin.

  6. One of the signatories is Bea(trix*) Campbell, who has a track record of creating or importing mass public panics. One previous one was the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare (imported from the US to the UK, and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the UK Left) in which all manner of data was cherry-picked to show an unprecedented hockey-stick in the incidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse, which had its name changed to MPD and then DID when the models didn’t fit the data.

    *I apologize if I have muddled two different people.

  7. I suspect most sceptics do not belong to a lobby, would not recognise one if they fell over it, and know ten times more science than Mr Porridge

      • MarkW

        Never occurred to me before. Of course the ‘lobby’ of the houses of parliament would be the only place people keen to influence politicians could intercept them. Hence, lobbyist.

        No idea if it’s true but seems logical.

        • A man walks into a hotel and sees a group of people talking animatedly. So he asks the clerk what’s going on. The clerk tells him that there is a chess convention in town.

          Right then one man walks by who proclaims to his companion, I once check mated my opponent in 10 moves. The companion replies, that’s nothing, I checkmated an opponent in only 7 moves.

          The clerk runs out from behind the counter, grabs the two men by the collar and shoves them outside.
          On the way back he’s heard to mutter to himself:

          I hate chess nuts boasting in an open foyer.

        • You’ve got a knack HotScot. It looks like that was in fact the origin.

          “Dating back to 1850 and known for off-the-record conversations in a city famous for private dealings, the lobby at the Willard used to be visited by President Ulysses S. Grant. He would sit in a comfortable leather chair in the lobby and enjoy a cigar and brandy. Many power brokers started courting him there. The legend is that Grant reportedly called these people lobbyists, hence the supposed origin of the word lobbyist.
          — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, PA), 03 May 1998”

  8. I don’t imagine anyone knows for sure how much money The Guardian has left in its coffers. The reason why I ask is because I wonder if they are operating in the red and are headed for eventual bankruptcy. I recall reading past comments that stated this could indeed be the case. It would explain why they are asking for donations from readers. Just wondering how much more time is left on The Guardian’s clock.

    Secondly, the writers of the letter certainly add more credence to the notion that CAGW is a cult. Totally closed minds and intolerant of disagreement and debate. Just like members of a cult. The worst thing about being in one is not knowing that you are.

    • CD in Wisconsin

      The guardian daren’t charge for access because no one would read it’s drivel so it asks for donations.

      And yes, it is in dire financial trouble.

      • Apparently, thousands of copies of the Graun are purchased every day by the BBC, thus boosting its circulation artificially.

        • It’s quite possible the Guardian is getting under-the-counter funding from the Alarmosphere and from players the social engineering lobby who benefit from its climate craptivisim on climate and other “progressive” issues. Also, now that the Guardian has gone Full Tabloid, it is probably bleeding cash at a slower rate than previously and may well stagger on for another decade.

      • The guardian daren’t charge for access because no one would read it’s drivel so it asks for donations

        and on the rare occasions when I click on a guardian article, I take great glee in *not* donating every time I see their little begging banner.

  9. I numbered each sentence in the quote:

    (1) We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. (2) We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. (3) In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.

    (1) Note that the first two sentences refer to “climate change”, framing a point of view based on the broad, dictionary-understanding of this phrase.
    (2) This sentence makes a call to action — to “act now”, having never mentioned what the relation is between human actions and climate.
    (3) This sentence proceeds to use a false equivalence between the phrases, “climate change”, and “human-triggered climate change” to confuse what “reality” is being talking about. Are we talking about “climate change” or “human-triggered climate change”? The writer is relying on this confusion between the reality of “climate change” and the QUESTION of “human-triggered climate change” to push HIS own, solidified view of what reality is. He ignores legitimate scientific questions about human triggers, in order to sustain his focus on his falsely equating “climate change” to “human-triggered climate change”. By relying on a broader sense of reality, he equates his own settled view to the more general view, and, thus, claims authority based on his erroneous conflation of terms.
    It is ironic how he later speaks of a false equivalence, when this is precisely the error he relies on to set up his own argument.

    Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

    “Overwhelming scientific consensus”, of course, is a tired falsehood. “Lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, … simply to sow doubt to serve those interests”, of course, is another tired, tired falsehood, to say nothing of its over-the-top generalizing that fails to capture any real sense of the most intelligent skepticism. Then he goes back to using the phrase, “climate change” again (the general idea of it), speaking of dangers associated with the general term that he has NOT mentioned.
    It is primo alarmist blather.

    • More examples of the equivocation logical fallacy being used for political gain by rhetorical arguments – NOT on a scientific basis. vis:

      The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

      Core Fallacies – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

      1. The fallacy of equivocation is an argument which exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an argument, such that on the first occurrence it has one meaning and on the second another meaning. A familiar example is:

      The end of life is death.
      Happiness is the end of life.
      So, death is happiness.

      ‘The end of life’ first means ceasing to live, then it means purpose. That the same set of words is used twice conceals the fact that the two distinct meanings undermine the continuity of the reasoning, resulting in a non-sequitur.

  10. Have just sent a letter to the Guardian on this. forgot to copy it ; but essentially asked whether any of the signatories had ever written a solid scientific paper identifying the human imprint on CAGW. Also asked for their views on the Climate Sensitivity issue.
    Doubt It will be published or receive any response. C’est la vie these days!

  11. The Guardian’s position is based on “… scientific consensus…,” which is an oxymoron. Fitting for the “Grauniad.”

    Tells you all you need to know.

  12. Fancy a fried, boiled hard or soft, poached or even fresh egg for breakfast?
    Don’t !
    “There are all these forms of torture we subject eggs to and I wanted to remind people that these are potential lives,”
    (today’s Guardian)

    • vukcevic

      I trust your reading of it was for research purposes only.

      Sorry, silly question, nothing worth researching in the guardian so you were probably just having a giggle.

      • Having a giggle is about the only reason one should read a guardian article. Anything else is a waste of time and energy

    • Same people are up in arms if you mention abortion being obscene.

      Leftism is an illness, far leftism has severer symptoms, but make no mistake it is an illness.


    • Oh…good grief. Unless there is a randy rooster involved the eggs can’t produce new life. The Graun is even madder than I already supposed.
      Our girls have a good life, unbothered by roosters and free-ranging daily. Some amazing stuff goes into our wonderful eggs!

  13. I think I could have written a better letter:

    “We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates… even though it is critical to mankind’s survival that we convince those who are skeptical, we refuse to engage with those who disagree with us. We’ll just call them deniers since that carries a highly offensive connotation.

    “…heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests.” And to be clear, I mean the minimally funded vested interests on the OTHER side, not the heavily funded vested interests on OUR side.

    “Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge. But not OUR consensus, obviously.

    “We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change. But we don’t want to do any cost/benefit analysis of any specific actions, plans, or comprehensive strategy. If the cost is less than infinity, and the benefit is greater than 1 divided by infinity, we want to do it. Evaluating strategy might result is us promoting nuclear power, or adjusting to the global climate cycle rather than spending all our resources on a futile effort to interrupt the global climate trends. Except that I’m not willing to actually debate, so what I mean is that we need to urgently move the preaching.

    “Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, but we should not actually let them express their views.

    Remember, the world will end unless everyone does what we say without questioning it.


    Dear Guardian

    This letter demonstrates why the global warming struggle will not end until the next ice age. It is the ideologically possessed telling Guardian readers what an imagined third party “doesn’t believe”, blaming dark conspiracies for their failure to alarm. Skeptics understand the bad math and modeled “tipping points” underlying their eschatological projections, their ever-expanding demands for funds and need for unbridled command and control. Three decades on, the cry, “There is nothing to discuss!” still rings untrue. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is for people who are bad at math. There is no positive water vapour feedback. The rest is noise.



    (100 words)

    • Ahh, but don’t you know, we’re not in a 100-words-world anymore, it’s 140 characters…or is it 280 now?


    • Crispin in Waterloo

      Your letter will be passed around all staff, who have a dictionary. The second word “letter” is a real challenge for them. You might have to wait a while until they can look up the rest.

  15. I’m not going to tolerate any intolerance. Except my own. Because I’m right and you are wrong. So if I was to tolerate you it would be equivalent to saying you are right and I am wrong. Which is a false equivalence.

    And besides. You are a poo-head because you have lots of big oil money and I don’t.

    • I too cannot wait to see the Guardian bankrupt. In the meantime we should remove their own SEO in-copy link “climate change” to their favoured target landing page, from their quoted text. WUWT is a powerful site now and linking from a climate related post, to their preferred climate page will only help the Guardian push farther up Google page 1, for “climate change” searches.

      • Big Palm Oil
        “grease someone’s palm and oil someone’s palm
        Fig. to bribe someone. If you want to get something done around here, you have to grease someone’s palm. Nothing happens at the IPCC unless you oil some official’s palm.”

        • Smokes! See below. Was that you with big Al? You are going to need more than climate change to get that stain out. Probably need to move to a new planet.

      • Big Palm Oil money, please debate.
        For some reason those words make me think of big Al’s favorite massuese. Some things you never wanted to know. The true Tipper point in climate science.

  16. The list from the Graun supporting this drivel

    Jonathon Porritt Chair, Sustainable Development Commission 2000-11
    Nuff said, in the pay of big palm oil.
    John Sauven Executive director, Greenpeace
    Greenpeace, described as a terrorist organisation by former Director Patrick Moore.
    Prof Richard Murphy Director, Tax Research UK
    Predictable, lots of tax to be made from climate change.
    Peter Tatchell
    Prof Andrea Sella, Michael Faraday prize winner
    Had to be a prize winner in there somewhere.
    Prof Robert Ayres Author
    Alarmist who wrote a book on physics and economics, because he has degrees in both. Chose climate cos’ it was sellable.
    Caroline Lucas MP
    Remember the 70’s post up tennis playing bird? The greens dribble over Caroline thinking it was her.
    Clive Lewis MP
    Another MP, fancy that.
    Prof Molly Scott Cato MEP
    A European MP, fancy that even more.
    Dr Rupert Read Chair, Green House thinktank
    Sorry, another one with green in their title.
    George Monbiot Author
    George is a great zoologist, lousy at politics and should keep his trap shut on the subject.
    Dr Doug Parr Chief scientist, Greenpeace
    Effing green terrorists everywhere.
    Chris Rose Former programme director, Greenpeace
    Another terrorist!
    Jeremy Leggett Founder, Solar Century
    Imagine that, Leggett promoting a cause that encourages renewables.
    Mayer Hillman Senior fellow, Policy Studies Institute
    Knows lots about policy, fuck all about climate.
    Bea Campbell
    She has a Scottish name, Cambpell, colluded in the highland clearances. Untrustworthy.
    Ed Gillespie Co-founder, Futerra
    An Ad agency promoting itself, what a surprise!
    Mark Lynas Author
    From his own site: one of the original GM field wreckers. Back in the 1990s – working undercover with his colleagues in the environmental movement – he would descend on trial sites of genetically modified crops at night and hack them to pieces. Then he “discovered science”
    Dr James Garvey Author
    A philosopher?
    Oliver Tickell Author
    British journalist, author and campaigner on health and environment issues. Irrelevant.
    Chris Goodall Author
    Businessman, author and (self proclaimed) expert on new energy technologies. Accomplished self promoter.
    Prof Clive Spash Author
    “an economist who writes, researches and teaches on public policy with an emphasis on economic and environmental interactions. My main interests are interdisciplinary research on human behaviour, environmental values and the transformation of the world political economy to a more socially and environmentally just system.” Another liberal apologist for the human race.
    Prof Hugh Montgomery Co-founder, UK Climate and Health Council

    A medical doctor (respect) who holds the world record for underwater piano playing (respect jettisoned).
    Prof Mark Maslin Author
    Lesbos field trip:

    Isn’t science fun!
    Prof Anthony Ryan Director, Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures
    “collaborated on a range of arts and sciences projects with Professor Helen Storey from the London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London.” Social climber.
    Dr Sian Foch-Gatrell Green Ocean Project
    So far, two images of her –

    Recent graduate it seems. Her only claim to fame is this Guardian article. Oh! and of course she’s UEA.
    Dr Erik Buitenhuis Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
    Oh look! Imagine that, another member of UEA, fancy that.
    David Wasdell Director, Apollo-Gaia Project
    Sorry, his title says it all.
    Prof Paul Ekins UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources
    The clue is in the title, rent seeker.
    Dr Teresa Belton Author
    Another one from UEA. I can see where this is going.
    Dr Nick Brooks Climatic Research Unit, UEA
    FFS, I’m tripping over them everywhere!
    Dr Simon Boxley Centre for Climate Change Education, University of Winchester)
    At least he’s not UEA, but just look at that job title!
    Prof Jem Bendell Sustainability Leadership Institute, University of Cumbria
    Liberal academic think tank. They should sit on their heads and have their arses to do the hard work.
    Dr David Drew MP
    Honestly, I can’t be bothered any more.
    Dr Ian Gibson Former chair of the House of Commons science and technology select committee)
    OK, just a few more. Lost his political job, had to find another gravy train.
    Keith Taylor MEP
    Clare Moody MEP
    Catherine Bearder MEP
    Cllr Jonathan Bartley Co-leader, Green party
    Carne Ross Former UK and UN diplomat
    Made redundant, see Dr Ian Gibson.
    Neal Lawson Director, Compass
    socialist ~spit~
    Ben Chacko Editor, Morning Star
    Chacko was appointed editor of the Morning Star in May 2015 – Chacko credits his conversion to communism to a recommendation from his mother. ~double spit~ But what an indictment for this lot!
    Deepak Rughani Co-director, Biofuelwatch
    Oh please, vested interest or what.
    Patrick Barkham Author
    Writes for the guardian. Loony left.
    Prof Gary Francione
    Can’t be bothered with the rest. Doubtless they are all rent seekers, trough snufflers, grant seekers, publicity hounds or crackpots.
    Prof Sarah Churchwell
    Dr Christine Cornea
    Dr Richard House
    Dr Abby Innes
    Dr Pierre Bocquillon
    Prof Del Loewenthal
    Prof Andrew Samuels
    Dr Jo Veltman
    Prof Peter Belton
    Dr Andrew Boswell
    Dr Katherine Kite
    Mark Crutchley
    Karen Whiterod
    Anne Dismorr
    Jonathan Kent

    How many of them have actually looked at WUWT? So it’s just a blog, with at least as many credible scientists contributing to it as this list of tawdry band wagon jumpers.

    Thank you Anthony. Keep going, this mob of scoundrels is all you have to worry about in the UK!

    • Green Ocean Project? Do Greens now embrace the greening of the planet?

      More likely they will fight it as usual. Self-appointed labels can be deceiving, see Antifa.

    • HotScot – the more of your list I read the more absurd it looked, you have done us a public service by showing how it is essentially a self-serving bunch of Grauniad publicity seekers who have reduced their favourite paper to a laughing stock.
      The Grauniad is ostensibly overseen by a Trust which is supposed to ensure the long term interests of the newspaper. They must be asleep on the job while their Titanic heads predictably and inexorably for the depths. Shame on them for espousing a cause aimed at telling “scientific” lies and stealing billions from the public purse while 35,000 people died unnecessarily last winter in Britain because they couldn’t both heat their homes and afford to eat as well. Well done Guardian!

      • MCoEA

        It started as a laugh, a bit of ribbing, then as I went further, it got more serious.

        I stopped searching the names of these people because it was getting depressing to read the litany of corruption they all represent. A gang mentality.

        I actually wonder if any of them have read this article and realise they have aligned themselves with Chacko, a self proclaimed communist. I wonder if they even realise how that taints them. Dr Sian Foch-Gatrell, an academic child it seems, recruited before she has a chance to establish her career, shame on these criminals for not turning her away.

        I’ll be surprised if there’s one person who doesn’t speak out; George Monbiot. As much as I consider him a foolish political commentator, he’s still a clever man and I think would be the first to speak up for humanity. I hope he does.

        The rest are too stupid to understand the implications of something like this.

  17. If you add up Urban Heat Island effects, land usage changes and ex post facto adjustments to the temperature record, I’d say that a good portion of climate change can be attributed to man. The real question is… how much can be attributed to man-made CO2? The answer is, of course, not much.

  18. Somewhere … I recall reading that the #1 cause of death (and constant danger) in the Rain Forest is falling trees. Naturally falling trees, branches, etc. I suggest that a little clear-cutting might actually SAVE more lives than are taken by the reduction in Co2 absorbing plants.

    • I suggest an edit on a favorite line oft used in my industry:

      More people have perished on a bridge in Chappequidick than have died due to human induced climate change through CO2 forcing (man that’s a mouthful…oh for the simpler golden days of yore when it was just CAGW…).


    • Branches are certainly the #1 cause of injury to me when mowing my lawn. Especially from the Monkey Puzzle tree, and the blackberry shrubs that just won’t go away.

  19. The shameless arrogance such effusions reveal. It never occurs to the morons that people are skeptic because of expertise and substantial knowledge of the subject. No, we are cynics and paid for our efforts by the devil himself. What they fail to grasp is that that tired diatribe reflects very poorly on their own ethics, because it implies that they consider that advocacy, by implication including their own, is something you do for money. Instead of for the love of scientific truth.

    • They’ve already convinced themselves that they are the sole repositories of virtue.
      To them it is inconceivable that someone could oppose them for good motives.

  20. The attitude displayed in that letter is as pathetic and juvenile as sticking your fingers in your ears and going “na na na na na I don’t want to hear this” or “I win, I win, no returns”.

    The reason libtards always want to ‘no platform’, shut down debate, prevent debate, label opponents as bigoted/ignorant/deniers etc. is very simple.

    They are scared/know that they can’t win a fair debate.

  21. The real question – or point – is that no governmental policy (or UN policy) will have any effect whatsoever on what the climate does. This should be the message. All this debate about what is “real” is just hand waving.

  22. The gruan also says that women found to be making false rape accusations (like the one found to be visiting a sex shop with the “rapist” after the “rape”) should not have to bear any legal consequences. (muh reporting rape is so hard)

    It isn’t even the usual sickos “liberals” at that point. They just need help.

  23. Pretty funny. “We are no longer willing to lend our credibility…” They say that like they have some.

    • Beat me to it. As if they have any credibility after all the scurrilous promotion of AGW.
      As for Porritt, the saddest thing about him is his access to the UK’s future King(s). (Lucas should concentrate more on her failed constituency in Brighton).

  24. I believe the real question is not only what portion of global warming, climate change or climate disruption (or whatever other term you prefer) is manmade; The biggest, and probably the most important, question is what will be the consequences?

    It seems every time someone says “climate change is real” they include ‘climate catastrophe is therefore also real’. That is what is making debate impossible. We, the sceptics, are people who manage to see shades of grey while they, the alamists have only two options: You’re either in or out.

    No way you can debate on those grounds.

  25. Interesting that the Times article about Jonathon Porritt does NOT allow comments.
    The Times is subscription only so that comments tend to be sane and quite a contrast to the Guardian, with 70% of comments against metropolitan-lib-bubbleworld,
    However the Times has taken to not allowing comments on articles about Islam, whereas they do allow comments on articles sneering at Tommy Robinson and then the article does get a kicking by the commenters.
    So it’s a bad trend that the Times has this creeping closure of debate.

  26. *heavily funded by vested interests,* I find that interesting.
    *but with better science, not with spin and nonsense.* Didn’t I see tonight on WUWT that a guy who had submitted a paper that was refuted in the same journal was not allowed to reply to his detractors.
    I am sick of hypocrites.

  27. In other UK Green party news
    Their equalities spokeswoman a trans activists Aimee Challenor worked with her father to make a TERF blocker app
    \\ What about the fact that both father and daughter developed ‘terf blocker’ and bragged about silencing 50,000 women across social media !!//

    But it’ just come out that she’s been using him as her election agent, even though he has been on trial for child detainment and rape
    A case where h has just been convicted and sentenced to 22 years
    \\ Coventry Green Party HQ was officially listed as the Challenor’s home. The crime scene. The SAME home where a ten year old girl was raped and tortured in a “torture chamber” attic. How is @TheGreenParty statement in any way adequate? //

    Times adds more
    \\ Challenor’s father, who used the Twitter name An Old Arch Devil, also carried out design work for the Green Party’s national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender campaign.//

    The Times is starting a trend of not allowing comments on certain news articles.
    This is the second one I have seen today

  28. We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates

    what credibility? you have none. You lost all credibility when you asserted without reason that the science was settled.

    It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic.

    If you really believe that, than you should be not only be willing but also extremely eager to debate in order to show to all and sundry how real it is and how catastrophic it will be. But you aren’t willing because you know you’d lose any such debate because the facts just don’t support your hyperbole.

    . Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge – but with better science, not with spin and nonsense.

    Spin and nonsense is all alarmist ever bring to the table. the science is settles. 97% consensus. deniers. All spin and nonsense.

    We urgently need to move the debate…

    wait a minute, I thought you didn’t want to “lend your credibility to debates?” now you do want debates, but only on your terms. That’s another reason why you have no credibility anymore, you don’t get to dictate the terms of debate.

    We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change

    You need to actually prove that dangerous climate change 1) exists and 2) is something that man can do something about. only you refuse to have the debates that would allow you to do that. Instead you want to jump straight to “do what I say and how dare you question the basis for what I say”. Sorry but that dog doesn’t bark.

    – because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

    No common sense demands that we actually determine if your supposed problem is an actual problem rather than take it on faith that your assertion about it being a problem is true.

Comments are closed.