How the Warmist Lost: They Lied and lied and lie....

Greater stupidity one would be pushed to find. Not only are these drones promoting a hoax, they actually believe it as well.

One does not have to search far to find how much those warmists have lied, threatened, induced fear and manufactured data to suit their own agenda. They are and have been totally and completely dishonest and forced other scientists to their way of thinking or get fired, replaced, removed from science sites or receive a bashing at the hands of the Global Warming media like the Guardian in England or the New York Times in the US and many more. Both those scandal sheets have a lot to answer for and it is about time they were held accountable for their gross neglect and exaggerations, the misinformation and the gross mismanagement of news and articles concerning that Global Warming Fraud.

Someone has to pay and a lot are guilty.

How we won

Andrew Bolt August 05 2012 (5:15am)

Apparently just a few of us knuckle-draggers have now won the debate, with barely a skerrick of support as we’ve taken on politicians, warmist scientists, academics, public broadcasters, most journalists, teachers, climate commissioners, green entrepreneurs, Hollywood, the United Nations and countless billions in public funding.
So declares warmist Professor Robert Manne, Australia’s “most influential public intellectual” - whose credentials must now be questioned, given this result.
According to Manne, the victory of the “denialists” - a term he’s chosen to exploit the Holocaust - should simply not be:

What is clear, however, is that a rational citizen has little alternative but to accept the consensual core position of climate scientists. Discussion of this point should long ago have ended.

Note the assertion that discussion “should” have ended, even though Manne implies that some scientists do indeed still question what he vaguely describes as “consensual core question”. There is an antipathy here to the questioning mind that is unbecoming in an academic. Sinister.
And Manne immediately betrays the real problem in having a mind as closed and unquestioning as his own. A mind too gullible:

In 2009, two scientists from the University of Chicago published in Eos the result of a survey they conducted among a group they called “Earth scientists”. They discovered that among those who called themselves climate scientists and who had published recently in the field, 97.4% agreed with the proposition that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”.

Define “significant”, for a start. But then look at the methology of this survey Manne cites:

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

The real result is based on the views of just 75 of 10,257 scientists. Manne thinks this is decisive. This says everything.
Now, someone of a properly sceptical disposition, as all true scientists and journalists should be, would actually question many other statements made by warmist scientists and people like Manne. And they’d find them to be even dodgier than Manne’s survey, which would naturally then make people start to doubt what else they were being told. And with further doubt came further evidence of exaggerated claims and busted predictions. And it’s this process - one involving not denialism but questioning, not claims but evidence - which is handing sceptics their “victory”.
Consider. It is sceptics who exposed the following warmist claims as false:

The Himalayan ice would melt by 2035.
The Arctic ice would vanish in 2008 or 2012.
The world would warm significantly over the past decade or more - and certainly much more than it has.
Polar bears are vanishing.
The Greenland ice sheet was melting fast.
Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would make a difference to the climate.
The Great Barrier Reef would now bleach every second year.
Reefs faced devastation from a warming world.
Australia’s drought would be “permanent” or the “new climate”
The ”rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
The sea level rises have accelerated.
Hurricanes would get worse.
Decreasing ice on Mt Kilimanjaro was evidence of warming.
Antarctic ice was declining.
The world was warming so fast we’d be down to just a few breeding pairs in the Arctic by the end of the century.
Snow in Britain would almost vanish.

All these claims proved to be false. Manne would have accepted them.
This explains our victory.
(More from Jo Nova.)

Climate Change: Just a mention, gets you a Grant.

The photoshopped polar bear on dimishing ice. CAGW lies..

The entire CAGW theory and it's hallucinatory projections appears to be at an all time high. All that is required to receive taxpayers dollars is to include the words "climate change" and heh, presto, here's the money.

This level of stupidity is unsurpassed, the lies and exaggerations just keep on coming and it's the Labor Government under major lunatic Gillard and those whacko marxist Greens who are promoting precisely that great lie.

One wonders what level of ignorance and hysteria one has to approach and foster in order to inhale all that drivel, what level of soul selling is involved and also how does one reach such a level of dishonesty. Hopefully some day in the future, those charlatans will be exposed for the charlatans they really are and are forced to repay those tax dollars which should have gone to schools and hospitals and the odd road in bad state of repair.

How to write a modern grant application 

Andrew Bolt

July 25 2012 (8:15am)

How do you get a grant from the Australian Research Council? Just add the words “climate change” to your otherwise undistinguished grant application. Philippa Martyr demonstrates the extremes some researchers have gone to - and been rewarded for:

Civil Engineering: “This project will develop innovative light gauge steel roofing systems with considerably increased wind resistance and reliable design rules for cold-formed steel codes worldwide. It will contribute to the Australian government’s goal of increasing building resilience against future extreme and more frequent wind events caused by climate change.” ($320,000)
Political Science: “Commonsense says that claims about how social and political life ought to be arranged must not make infeasible demands. This project will investigate this piece of commonsense and explore its implications for a number of pressing issues, such as climate change, multiculturalism, political participation, inequality, historical justice, and the rules of war.” ($408,587)
Psychology: “Climate change represents a moral challenge to humanity, and one that elicits high levels of emotion. This project examines how emotions and morality influence how people send and receive messages about climate change, and does so with an eye to developing concrete and do-able strategies for positive change.” ($197,302)

Journalism and Professional Writing: “This project will examine the use of news management or ‘spin’ by Australian governments. Is it a legitimate tool of government in the face of a hyper-adversarial news media or a technique which undermines democracy? It will examine ‘spin’ in connection with policies on climate change, economic policy, indigenous policy and asylum seekers policy.” ($95,000)

Literary Studies: “The project will devise and develop a new ‘cultural materialist’ paradigm for science fiction studies and apply it to a case study of science fictional representations of catastrophe, especially nuclear war, plague and extreme climate change.” ($239,000)

Read on for more astonishing examples from the great green gravy train. UPDATE
Digging deeper, we find the winner of the journalism grant is former communist turned journalism academic David McKnight, who earlier received nearly $200,000 - or $3 a word - to write a predictably hostile book on Rupert Murdoch.
Dr Roberto Soria was onto this earlier this year (along with JoNova):

And by the way, number of winning projects that propose to test whether climate change is real or catastrophic: zero. The climate-change industry has really become a monster out of control.

Some of those projects would not have got a cent, if the government wasn’t under the influence of this collective hallucination.

There’s a whole parasitic class of academics who make a good living off the catastrophic climate change myth, and the larger this class grows, the more difficult it will be to burst the bubble. Anyway, just in case you think this is just sour grapes, it is not. I actually won a grant myself this round, and it is one of the few projects that will do absolutely nothing for or against climate change But I am sad to see so much research money wasted for nothing.

JoNova has had cause to chide McKnight for his writing on global warming:

Here’s a UNSW “Senior Research Fellow” in journalism who contradicts himself, fails by his own reasoning, does little research, breaks at least three laws of logic, and rests his entire argument on an assumption that he provides no evidence for.

Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever: Climate Change = Pseudoscience

Catastrophic Photoshopped AGW image as verified. Falsified as Polar Bears are doing just fine.

The AGW hysterics pundits still make the claim that so many scientist promote and believe their fallacy that no one "notable or recognised" as a "real" scientist, ever states anything else than their inane AGW drivel.

That inane drivel has now been recognised and summarised by this Nobel prize winner. A winner of that prize when they use to actually award it on merit and not for politics as they did for the great imitator Obama and the world's greatest con man Al Gore. Both deserved a Nobel for inventions and snake oil salesman techniques, but that is about all.

We are all gonna die..

Jo Nova...

Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience”

Giaever stood his ground, dished it out for the Nobel committee, and pointed out the instruments are inaccurate, the results too small to mean anything, and called climate change “pseudoscience”. Merciless.

As he took the stage for his turn, Gieavar’s (sic) immediate remark was, “I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.” He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a “religion.” In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Gieavar (sic) found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.” He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added. He finished with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”