All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Friday, 22 June 2012

Trolling and denying

Wikipedia image of a troll.
The unreliable source of information Wikipedia defines a troll:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog...
This blog has attracted its own troll.  Unlike the loose definition from Wikipedia, our own in-built troll has created his own troll blog.

It is full of warped statements and untruths.

As an example of an untruth or contradictory statement, the troll wrote, in answer to a comment on this blog:

"Nice wordplay on the monika (sic). A little juvenile but still clever. "

Note especially - juvenile but still clever.

However, when he made a post on his troll blog, he wrote:

My initial thought was, “Okay, this person is obviously pretty childish if they think that’s clever.

Well done troll! You even contradict yourself in your own post. A little thought before you post would be appreciated.

He then went on to say that "No-one is saying that CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming." Hypothesis denied.

That should be it! He is on our side. Case closed. Perhaps he will join our party and help the fight for the good guys against the liars from the climategate CRU.

Putting that aside, the troll has now attacked a respected science professor, Bob Carter. Now, the troll maintains he is also a scientist but hides behind a pseudonym which is something like eyespiknonsense. I will not give his troll blog air by giving the actual name. If he wants to defame (another?) scientist, he should at least have the guts to mention his real name.

First, he calls Bob Carter a denier. Oh, really, troll? What does he deny? DO you deny that there was a MWP? Do you deny that there was a LIA? The Climategate CRU tried to deny these historical events.

Then he attacks Bob's opinion on peer review.

Anyone who has scanned the ClimateGate emails knows that there was a coterie of scratch-my-back peer reviewers and also a sinister mob seeking to stop anti AGW papers from being published. The treatment of NZ Scientist Chris de Freitas was abhorrent.

Troll, look at the science. Open up your mind. Better minds than yours have realised that AGW is a hoax. Think of people like ex-NASA's Ferenc Miskolczi and  his country mate Miklos Zagoni -and David Evans and Joanne Nova. All were fervent AGW pushers until they awoke to the truth.

Look at the data - the uncorrupted data. Temperature has NOT risen for years.

The troll is not only a liar but confuses consensus with science. Poor deluded troll.

From HadCRUT3:-


Even Hadcrut4 shows no warming for ten years:-


The troll has made an unusual statement in response to this post:
Climate deniers are saying there can’t be any warming because the Earth is flat. No doubt Geoffrey you disagree with that statement so therefore you obviously accept the consensus position. Case closed.

Well, troll, Funny misuse of logic in those two sentences.

Climate deniers? I don't deny climate.

"Can't be any warming because the the Earth is flat..." That is just stupid. SO, I disagree with that statement.But to make that leap to accepting some unnamed consensus? Illogical.
And last but not least, Hadcrut 3. You do realise it has known cooling bias? Of course you do, Geoffrey. That is why you prefer it to the much more accurate Hadcrut 4. When you choose dodgy data to support your dodgy position…..
 Dodgy data? From Hadley Climate Research Unit? Surely not!  Who would you recommend? Hadcrut 4? From the source of the other "dodgy data?"  Hmmm...


Here is a screen shot of the first comment that disappeared from the troll's blog(8:23 AM 25/6
 The Follow up (11:38AM 25/6) was a reposting of the above.Also disappeared from the coward's coven.

I didn't think to take a shot of the first this morning that disappeared but here is the second attempt at 6:16 AM 26/6

and just to show that it didn't even go to moderation, this is 4 minutes later:

So, the troll is blocking my comments. Is the troll a liar and a coward? I'll let the reader be the judge.

I  have a fair idea why the troll said with some confidence: "I don't think he'll be back!" From now on he will be right.

UPDATE (sigh)
Against my better judgement I revisited the troll's diatribe blog and found that he had written:
As usual, I have tried to respond at his blog but it won’t be posted despite my adhering to his rules.... 
The lying weasel troll  posted ONLY ONE comment here that has not been published. Only one.
That comment did not conform to the simple rules.   I have tried to post more than four times (see above) on his bog er sorry, bLog (not funny just a copy of a stupid comment from his ispiknonsense blog)

Well, troll. Post your lies. Post your non-science. Post any anti -"Carbon really ain't pollution (C.R.A.P)" that you like.

You said: "I don't think he'll be back!"

No matter how many times you say - 'I know your  (sic) reading this'  I won't be. It will only be your cramped coterie of cheating chums.


  1. Hi,

    I think you'll find this is one of these:

    1. A 'Hater troller' who you have rubbed up the wrong way, even in a minor way, and now sees it as their duty to right that wrong. Check if they are attacking you in other fora.

    2.A 'Media Troller' who is not attacking you, but your views because they are similar to someone they might want to discredit, such as Bob Carter. See if they have attacked Bob Carter in other fora.

    3. A 'Phil J Troller' who is the one who is always right and everyone else wrong. They are their mothers pride and they got the best results at school, etc. Many like to try to make me out to be a Phil J troller, when in fact I just need to improve my counter-trolling technique in dealing with Hater trollers!

    Many people wrongly call these three 'Jealous Trolls', as they can't easily differentiate. If you do a search on my website for 'thank you hater' there is a video that will make you feel better as it parodies your troller!

  2. Geoff,

    I encountered the troll in question on YouTube debating about wind power. He was pushing the Beyond Zero 100% renewable WWS plan that came out of Melbourne. He really is clueless. He thinks computer models qualify as empirical proof. He's not worth the effort debating

    Googling his name is what led me to discover your blog.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Edited - Troll's denier blog deleted -

    "All serious comments published after moderation. Comments should be polite, and respect all views."
    If the supposed troll under discussion here is Mike of xxxx, I would like to see you abide by your own moderation policy and allow him to comment here, since all he seems to be guilty of is disagreeing with you.

    Alternatively, please take up his offer, and rebut his characterisation of you as a hypocrite and a coward... at xxx

  5. Martin,

    The troll can comment here, indeed has. There has been one comment by him that didn't abide by the rules and was not published.

    I will not promote his blog here and so your post was edited.

    1. Please explain how he fits your Wikipedia of a troll (apart from the fact that he appears to repeatedly flag-up the errors in your own arguments)?

    2. Presumably, Anthony, you are one of those people who insist that anyone* who changes their mind - and embraces the validity of the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate disruption is a problem we cannot afford to ignore anymore - has been duped by the scientific and political conspiracy that is seeking to foist environmental alarmism upon a credulous world?

      * I am thinking here of people like physicist Dr Richard A Muller and economist William D Nordhaus, not to mention the International Energy Agency and the US Dept of Defense.

    3. I don't think Muller or Nordhaus changed their mind about AGW. Certainly Muller has always been a believer: see;

      I can't find any evidence that Nordhaus has ever expressed scepticism of AGW and later recanted either.

      What evidence do you have Martin?

      And don't refer to government agencies or bureacracies as evidence for a consensus for AGW; that bird has long crashed.

    4. For the avoidance of any doubt, Anthony, my point was not that these people were once sceptical regarding the reality of AGW/ACD (I prefer ACD because more frequent and more extreme weather has always been what was predicted).

      My point was that these people/organisations now all admit that further delay in de-carbonising our energy generation systems will be the wrong decision on cost-benefit basis, because mitigation costs are now set to escalate. Put simply we cannot afford not to take action. Sadly, this message did not get through to attendees at Rio last week (it was drowned-out by growthmania and fossil fuel lobby propaganda).

      'Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong', New York Review of Books (22 March 2012).

    5. With regard to your citation of Ethics Alarms (a blog by a lawyer not a scientist), you clearly have not read the very first comment (and those that followed it) written by me the day it was posted.

    6. ACD? Extreme weather is the latest bolt-hole of AGW believers. Jo Nova examines the 'evidence' here:

      The concept of extremes of natural variation as a result of AGW is also being considered by the The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project . Head scientist Gilbert Compo notes:

      "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

      That's no change. What happens is that the variations are over 30 years and people forget that the last 30 year period was cold and stormy and this one is hot and full of bushfires; this makes them suceptible to propaganda like AGW.

      Cost benefit analysis; Lomborg is Cool It, page 41, Figure 11 showed a comprehensive analysis of the cost benefits in dealing with AGW, assuming it was real; the cost of restricting temperature increase to 1.5C, the preferred IPCC option was $84 trillion with $11 trillion in benefits; the cost of doing nothing and adapting was $1 trillion and the benefits were $2 trillion.

      The basis of Lomborg's analysis is that even if AGW is real there will be benefits such as increased crop yields and less deaths from cold.

      The cost benefit position of the warmists is put by Nordhaus here:

      According to the CEI analysis of Nordhaus, Nordhaus found:

      "that global warming under a business as usual case would inflict damage on the world amounting to $22 trillion. Sir Nicholas Stern’s proposed course of action would reduce that damage to $9 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion, for a total cost to the world of $36 trillion, $14 trillion more than unmitigated global warming. Al Gore’s package of measures would reduce global warming costs to $10 trillion at a cost of $34 trillion, for a total cost of $44 trillion, twice the total cost of global warming. A variety of measures aimed at keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius would have similar benefits and costs to the Stern proposal. Nordhaus proposes a modest carbon tax as the best way to tackle global warming, providing the most benefit at the least cost, but does not fully analyze a resiliency/adaptation approach such as that advanced by Prof Julian Morris and others, including CEI. "

      The point of this is that even if you BELIEVE AGW is real the best cost/benefit approach is to do nothing. This incidentally puts paid to the precautionary principle argument as well.

    7. ACD is creating havoc with Tornadoes in the US.

      According to NOAA's NCDC: ( )

      "According to data from the Storm Prediction Center, the count of preliminary tornado reports during May — 139 — was much below the 1991-2010 average of 276. May is typically the most active tornado month during the year. This marks the slowest May, in terms of the number of tornadoes since 2005, when 124 tornadoes were confirmed. Once the final tornado count is confirmed, it is likely the May 2012 count will be revised lower. There were no tornado-related fatalities reported during the month, the first time since 2005. The largest outbreak of the month occurred across south Texas on May 10th, when there were 20 preliminary tornado reports, with only minimal damage reported."

      Scary stuff, eh? Scary for the Alarmists that is!

  6. Hi Geoff; so the nominated troll can comment but can't promote his blog? Fair enough, let him comment. And if Martin wants to discuss AGW and in particular the obscene amount of money being spent on 'solutions' to AGW I would be glad to oblige him.

  7. Are you for real, Anthony?

    I ask you not to quote the opinions of lawyers to me regarding climate science; and you respond by quoting a microbiologist (i.e. Joanne Nova)...!

    I ask you to consider the position of William D Nordhaus in March 2012; and you respond by citing something he supposedly said in July 2007...!

    Since it is Wimbledon this week, I will quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!"

    Answer me this, question if you can: Which is more likely to be responsible for changes in the Earth’s climate that hav clearly occurred over the last 50 years:-
    A: a 0.25% increase in total solar irradiance?
    B: a 4% increase in average atmospheric moisture content?
    C: a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1850?

    Please don't think about it for too long; the most obvious answer is the most likely to be correct. (Sorry if that sounds like an appeal to authority; to me it is just common sense).

    1. Eh? How is Jo a lawyer; anyway Jo always gives references for her points; did you read her references to examples of why weather extremes have not increased? Do you have any evidence, papers, observations other than model predictions that extremes are increasing?

      CO2 has increased about 40% since 1900; Specific humidity increase is more problematic; see, from ISCCP:

      relative humidity has also fallen:

      See also the Soloman, Paltridge and Pierce papers on water vapor levels; and of course Miskolczi's groundbreaking work.

      As for the sun; read this paper which shows how the sun can explain the temperature movements over the 20thC:

      This is the short version designed to be published as a comment; the longer, fuller versions are available if you are interested; look at figure 2; think about it; come back with a sensible response; I am not interested in personal banter.

      Nordhaus; please explain how Nordhaus's position on a cost/benefit analysis of AGW has changed since 2007, the date of the DICE paper I linked to.

    2. If you dismiss all the evidence that we have a problem because you have already decided that we do not or cannot have one…

      If you ignore the vast majority of data that tell us we have a problem, and cite instead the very few studies that appear to indicate we do not have one…

      If you question the integrity of genuine climate scientists based on cherry-picked quotations from emails, and ignore the fact that such quotations were twice published on the eve of UNFCCC conferences in an attempt to prevent progress being made…

      If you label all those that say we have a problem as anti-progress, anti-Western, anti-human, eco-Fascists, or Watermelons; rather than accept that such people are merely highlighting the fact that we live on a finite planet with a finite waste recycling capacity…

      If you cannot see the link between the way in which the tobacco industry denied that smoking causes lung cancer and the way in which the fossil fuel industry has denied that burning their product is damaging the Earth’s climate…

      That is not scepticism; it is either ideologically-driven prejudice or willful blindness.

    3. Martin says:

      "If you dismiss all the evidence that we have a problem"

      And has yet to give us any evidence!

  8. Unfortunately for your argument, the reality of the situation is that both Muller and Nordhaus have admitted the were previously wrong to be sceptical about the seriousness of the problem we face and/or the need to mitigate it.

    There is no point me presenting you with evidence (you have already dismissed) unless or until you accept that all those that tell you what you want to hear (i.e. that we are not the cause of the problem) had decided that they agree with you before they started looking for evidence to support that belief. It is therefore not surprising that they found it. What is surprising, however, is that anyone could consider that a legitimate way to do scientific research.

    Oh and one more thing before I go, climate change "sceptics" are not (like Galileo) fighting against an obscurantist and anti-intellectual Establishment; they are (whether knowingly or not) fighting for one that wishes their burning of fossil fuels to remain socially acceptable for as long as possible. One has to admit that their campaign to perpetuate doubt by insisting the science is not settled (an idea they got from the tobacco industry) has been incredibly successful...

    1. Martin you offer as little as AGW science and yet you are sactimonious about it.

      You have offered no evidence to counter the evidence I have presented.

      Neither Muller or Nordhaus were ever sceptics; in respect of Muller, to give him his due, he was still scathing of trick science as this video of his talk on the 'hide the decline' shows:

      The AGW opposition is not, or has ever had anything to do with the fossil fuel industry or tobacco; it has everything to do with people who want honesty and transparency from science. AGW science delivers neither of these and has been repudiated time after time. It is a disgrace.

    2. Anthony, you may well be a good lawyer and know how to construct an argument; you may even genuinely believe what you write... But you have picked a fight with science and history and you will lose.

      The tobacco industry funded arms-length organisations such as TASSC - that appeared to have nothing to do with their industry - to do their bidding and, I am sorry to say, you have been duped by exactly the same insidious game play by the fossil fuel lobby.

      The hide the decline fantasy has been de-bunked so many times, I cannot believe you have the cheek to recite it.

      There is no scientific or political conspiracy to promote AGW. The only conspiracy is that seeking to deny what is happening. One day soon, those responsible will end up in court; maybe you will help defend them. If so, good luck; you're going to need it because, as I said, the facts of science and history are against you.

    3. I haven't been duped by anyone. Oreskes and the consensus argument is disingenuous to say the least; I have looked at her arguments and book a couple of times; here is the most recent:

      In respect of the 'decline' are you seriously suggesting that the proxies do not diverge with the instruments after 1960? The problem here is that if the proxies are opposite to the instruments in the recent period how can they be relied upon to accurately record the temperatures over the previous 2000 years as the hockeystick purports to do?

      You have linked to a site which shows the BEST data showing the same increase in the latter part of the 20thC as the other indices. So what? That is NOT what the hide the decline is about; as I say the 'decline' is about the divergence between the proxy data and the instrument data during this recent period. The link you have provided in no way contradicts what Muller said about that and the unscrupulous efforts of the pro-AGW scientists to disquise that contradiction.

      As regards a conspiracy; I never said there was an AGW conspiracy; conspiracies require intelligence and an ability to be surreptitious; these are not qualities I associate with AGW which I would describe as stupid and as obvious as the proverbials.

    4. "But mostly the wind has come out of the environmentalists’ sails because the science isn’t so settled as it once seemed. Perhaps the earth isn’t warming as much or as quickly as once feared, and to the extent it is maybe it’s the sun and not man-made carbon emissions that is the cause.

      As the climate-change theory crumbles, expect its supporters to be more vocal in its defence, more insistent that the science is ironclad. Like the cultish followers of any faddish religion when it nears the end of its fashionableness, they will proclaim their views even more vociferously and denounce more forcefully all those who disagree.

      But increasingly, their warnings of impending doom and their character attacks on their opponents will be performed before empty houses, as in Rio."


    5. "As the climate change theory crumbles..."

      Hmmm, an interesting concept that... Shame about the facts... On Tuesday the US Court of Appeal has recently upheld the EPA's right to treat CO2 as a pollutant... as the Politico website reports:

      'In a surprisingly sweeping win for the Obama administration’s climate policies, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency is “unambiguously correct” in the legal reasoning behind its regulation of greenhouse gases.

      The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit strenuously backed the EPA’s finding that the climate-altering emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare. It also upheld the agency’s early requirements for vehicles and new industrial plants while rejecting every challenge brought by a host of industry groups, states and other critics. In addition, the court approved the EPA’s attempts to narrow the number of companies that must comply with its greenhouse gas rules. And the three-judge panel rejected attacks on the EPA’s interpretation of climate science, including critics’ argument that the “Climategate” email scandal required the agency to reconsider its decisions.

      The court even mocked the critics’ claim that the EPA had improperly “delegated” its scientific judgment to outside groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “This argument is little more than a semantic trick,” the judges wrote, adding that building on past research “is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”'

  9. Anthony, I'm not sure which link you have looked at but the post on my blog demonstrating that Muller's BEST study validates the MBH98 Hockey Stick... also explains (or links to my explanation on my old Earthy Issues blog) that the "hide the decline" is a completely fantasy born out of either ignorance or mendacity:

    The only decline that has been 'hidden' is that in the recent proxy data (that have diverged from the recent instrumental record). That being the case, what would be the point in using proxy data when we have instrumental data? However, you will almost certainly respond by saying the divergence of the two in the last few decades makes the use of proxies unreliable in the past.

    Sure, that would be a decent argument except for one thing: The MBH98 Hockey Stick has been replicated by dozens of other studies using other proxies and they all point to one thing - the recent warming is unprecedented.

  10. If you are not a conspiracy theorist, Anthony, can you please explain to me why the vast majority of the World's professional scientific bodies such as the AAS, NAS, and Royal Society (to name but three) do not dispute the consensus view that we have a problem? Are you really trying to tell me that you know better - based on the opinions of a handful of genuine climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels and Roy Spencer and a whole load of non-climate scientists such as Bob Carter, Joanne Nova, Ian Plimer, etc.?

    I know it is very difficult to do but, please, stop lying to yourself! There are only two options here:
    -- Either you have an utterly-illogical and/or over-optimistic confidence in your own ability to reach a sensible judgement on matters about which (like me) you are not an expert;
    -- Or you are relying upon the views of scientists who believe they are right and the vast majority are wrong (i.e. the Galileo fallacy) and/or those that have always believed environmentalists are socialists in disguise (i.e. conspiracy theory).

    If there is an alternative explanation, I would love to hear it (but please do not cite members of any of the groups identified above).

    1. I'll reply to both your comments here.

      The BEST revision of gobal temperature data is here:

      BEST does not validate MBH98, or any hockeystick. BEST analyses temperature records back to 1800. How can that analysis confirm the hockeystick which purports to have reconstructed temperatute back 2000 years.

      BEST is deeply flawed; they disavow UHI completely; the weighting algorithm BEST uses is a Jacknife method of weighting all stations against time but only one geographical feature, height above sea level. But apart from that geographical fantasy the Jacknife method itself is flawed; it is flawed because the Jacknife method assumes EQUAL weighting of the stations which has not been done. This destroys any semblance of a meaningful confidence interval for the weighted data.

      Can you comment on this aspect of the BEST temperature record?

      The hockeystick has been replicated because Mann's statistical method can create a hockeystick out of white noise. Proper treatment of Mann's cherry picked data by expert statistical academics McShane and Wyner conclusively shows that the current temperatures are not exceptional.

      There is no hockeystick; do you understand why?

      You continually default to the consensus and authority justifications for AGW. Of all the organisations that you list as supporting AGW can you name any which are not funded, in part or whole by a government or not otherwise affiliated with a government which supports AGW?

      Address my questions; I am sick of your personal comments and sloganising.

  11. Dear Anthony,

    The BEST study confirms that the blade of the MBH98 Hockey Stick is real. However, to say that the rest of it is "noise" (not "signal") confirms that you are a conspiracy theorist; as does your dismissal of all professional bodies that have affirmed the consensus view of science and palaeoclimatology simply because they are funded by government. So what? Governments are spending ten times as much money susbidising fossil fuel extraction. Furthermore, all the people whose lies you are lamely repeating are funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

    I am not sloganising or attacking you; I am attacking the "we 'sceptics' are like Galileo" and/or "marketplace of ideas" fallacies on which your rejection of the consensus is based. I cannot win a "whose science is 'junk'" argument with you, therefore I am not going to have one.

    All I am pointing out to you is the organised nature of climate change denial; and the fact that you non-scientists are merely pawns in a disinformation campaign being run (just as the tobacco industry did before them) by the fossil fuel lobby... Therefore, I am sorry to have to say this, as I am not attacking you personally but, you do seriously need to wake up and realise who has been lying to you.

    If you cannot - or will not - see this then there is no point my continuing to talk to you.



    1. I looked at your link; it is a diatribe against the Republican party in the US by 3 academic social scientists; really?!.

      I find it odd that supporters of AGW persistently attach the label conservative to sceptics and assert that scepticism is not a grass roots process but merely big business funded and organised and the antithesis of the democratic support for AGW. This position is an insult to every citizen who goes to the rallies against the CO2 tax; unlike the paid GetUp activists these people have real jobs and real lives and their commitment is greater in supporting their society.

      There is one way to resolve this issue of popular support; an election based on the CO2 tax. NCTCS would make that election based not only on the CO2 tax but also the 'science' of AGW and particularly the RET and the failure of wind and solar as viable energy sources.

      I have already written on the failure of the conservatives, the coalition, to address the AGW science and their continued support for the RET is a real concern; see:

      I am also on the record as opposing the behaviour of big energy companies; their lack of respect for community concerns and lack of effort to solve REAL pollution issues not the chimera of AGW.

      In fact the vast number of big businesses have come out in support of AGW and the CO2 tax; that is all the banks, the finance industry, the trade union run super funds, most of the electricity suppliers; all of whom know that they will do well out of government subsidies while the average punter will soon have to make a choice between eating and staying warm. How does that support sit with your conservative/pro-AGW supporter dichotomy?

      The specific issue of subsidies to the coal industry is also a lie; see here:

      Your claim that "Governments are spending ten times as much money subsidising fossil fuel extraction" is a lie; the amount of money from governments going into AGW and renewable energy is obscenely large; for instance the UN wants to spend $76 trillion over the next 40 years on renewable energy alone:

      In Australia the government will be giving $13 billion to Green start-up energy scams between now and 2020.

      Given all this, and your admissions that "I cannot win a "whose science is 'junk'" argument with you," really says it all; because it is this fact, that the 'science' supporting AGW is entirely a product of modelling and not based on empirical evidence, which contradicts AGW, that is the issue. All this waste of money on renewables and research is based on a failed idea.

      It is not me who is a 'denier' but you for not seeing this increasingly obvious fact. Your position is religious, one of belief and I do not see why I or my society should be turned on its head because of your belief.

    2. I think we are about done, Anthony; you are wasting my time with your simplistic and false dichotomies.

      Your attempt to dismiss Jacques et al as politically motivated - indeed dismiss climate change as the fantasy of bunch of Watermelons is truly pathetic; and does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Environmental concern comes from both the political Left and Right; but denial of the need for action comes only from those that see it as a threat to their business interests.

      Concern over anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is not based on computer modelling; it is based on the study of palaeoclimatology... I am sure I have said this before, so am not going to repeat myself.

      Belief in God is a matter of faith (in the absence of proof). Denial of ACD is now an act of faith (despite a mountain of evidence that it is happening).


    3. "Environmental concern comes from both the political Left and Right; but denial of the need for action comes only from those that see it as a threat to their business interests."

      That is a lie; look at the list of companies who have come out in support of the CO2 tax:

      They are all green businesses, all of them have their noses in the trough of government hand-outs.

      I have already mentioned the banks, financial companies, law firms etc who support the CO2 tax and AGW. That's who you are in bed with Martin, the spivs!

      As well as that I have mentioned the misanthropy of the Green and pro-AGW movement:

      They're your fellow travellers, people-haters and Malthusians!

      I have asked you continually for evidence to back up your claims about a "mountain of evidence" to support AGW; none have been forthcoming. You claim AGW "is based on the study of palaeoclimatology"; what does that mean; the current claim for AGW is based on what happened in the past? Do you mean the hockeystick? The hockeystick doesn't exist! I gave you evidence for this in the McShane and Wyner, peer reviewed analysis. Perhaps you are referring to the recent Australian study by Gergis and Karoly paper:

      This paper was written by a Green activist and promoted by all the pro-AGW media, the abc and fairfax; and yet it was a fake, a product of at best total incompetence, at worst a fraud.

  12. Hi NCTCS,

    I agree that there is no place for trolling in our internet airwaves as it is hurtful, annoying and misleading. Even if some people have differing political views that you , they should not feel that this is sufficient reason to be disruptive and mean spirited in the debate. I understand that political discussions are often heated and controversial, but first and foremost we should respect each other as fellow Australians who have Australia's Best interest at hear (Although what that is often differs) .

    I was wondering as a political activist group, do you think that the answer to stop trolling like this is a legislative one? or do we need to battle this growing phenomenon in other way?

    Would love to hear your thoughts.



All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!