Lord Leach, Nature, WUWT and Skeptical Science (SS)

Climate Fraud is the total and complete scam that has so far cost taxpayers BILLIONS for no benefit.

There are a few things that appear to be changing in regards to the AGW hysterical rantings. When one has a look at the calibre of people involved in exposing this fraud has definitely expanded as we see here -

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony

It appears that the compulsive liars in the AGW fraud are reaching desperation level as they are now and have been in the past, naming or calling anyone who fails to follow their lockstep a "denier", akin to being a "Holocaust" denier. Even though there is ofcourse now comparison to that claim, they use it as a put down to discourage any competing or challenges to their completely incorrect model based assumptions. The weather bureau has problems predicting tomorrow's weather let alone next week or next year or next century that those claiments swear black and blue is 100% true, as far as they concerned, with no margin of error.

They are of the opinion that everyone else besides themselves are uter and complete morons and only they have the insight to predict the future weather just like a sooth sayer or magic glass ball viewers claim they do. It has been demonstrated that the temperature gauges have been placed in the wrong place (in front air con duct and on top of tarmac, at airports) as WUWT site owner has already demonstrated via a peer reviewed study. That result has already darkened their claim dramatically plus they have also been shown to include questionable assumptive information in their models as well. One AGW study used one single tree ring study when 1400 were available because it fitted their deceitful and dishonest claims.
 

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford

There are also deceitful sites like Skeptical Science (SS) which is run by a CAGW fanatical and compulsive liar, who makes endless claims regarding that fraud, only to be constatntly demonstrated for the compulsive sharlatan they are like. Paid stoolies,payed to spread the lies, as every one of those frauds are. There is no evidence that everyone will BBQ in their beds over nigh or the next week or the next century, as it has been all made up using false and questionable information and even if it does warm a degree or two, the world would benefit from it. But the fraud continues.

The Global Warming Scam.
Global Warming Commentary.

Lord Leach and Nature "Denier" Name Calling Gaffe..

Baghdad Bob even agrees, "the argument is settled".

I have always wondered why the AGW hysterical crowd always wallowed in name calling rather than stating actual facts, specific to the argument. One wonders why anyone would call someone a denier, denier, when in actual fact they had nothing else to offer in relation to the argument at hand. It demonstrates a childish and immature response, where one would scream "liar,liar,liar" when someone told the truth and one wanted to at least challenge that truth with something besides a shame faced response or a stance of guilty, like looking at the floor while trying to hide one's obvious guilt.
Shameless editors of magazines and warmist scientists alike, suffer from this same reactive response. Instead of proffering a verifiable response or arguing their stance, they resort to name calling, Mann and others of his ilk are masters of it. They have inturn bought science into ill repute, destroyed it's once great reputation and dosed it with kerosene and applied a match. For the sheer purpose of pushing their own religious doctrine while making a considerable amount of money in the process. Lying about AGW is very profitable as they can clearly demonstrate.

But they continue on their childish path and would do endlessly if there were not some people who wander on a higher moral ground, who rise above the name calling and finally call them to account. About time they did as well.

An introduction here by Anthony Watts, wondering the same thing as I - (follow the link for more of the article).

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Anthony Watts

I’ve still not received any reply from Nature Climate Change editor Rory Howlett to my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
=========================================================

Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.  
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Yours sincerely
Rodney Leach
Lord Leach of Fairford