Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Watching the real deniers deny the science and the truth.

You would think that people running a website called "watching the deniers" (link in title) would do a little investigating before posting lies. You would also think that, in the name of honesty, they would call their site - "Watching by the deniers."

In a blogpost called:

Nasty, brutish and short: The Climate Sceptics television ad pleads for us to “stop the green slaughter” 

They say:

The Intergovernmental body

"TCS is adamantly opposed to any carbon reduction schemes while obviously denying the reality of global warming."

They (Mike?) have made a false statement here. Denying the reality of Global Warming?  No, we KNOW that the Globe has been warming since it came out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) ~1850. Do the "watchers" deny the MWP and the LIA. If you take these events into account, the late twentieth century warming is not unusual.

In an interview just on a year ago, Phil Jones of Climategate fame, stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009. Thus, one can not use the global surface temperature record to statistically establish that the recent warming was different from past warming periods. 

The Climategate Cabal tried to suppress these events in order to make the 20th century warming look more striking to scare the populace. See here...

The Watcher goes on to dispute our connecting the severity of the Victorian fires to the Greens.

Well, Ray Evans, who lost a home in Maryville addresses it here.

Considering Green groups and councillors have actively prevented fire mitigation burn-offs, it was interesting that Fire Mitigation experts weren't allowed to address the Royal Commission: (Jennifer Marohasy)
In response to the news that experts in bushfire mitigation and management, in particular Forest Fire Victoria Inc and the Bushfire Front Inc, will not be given leave to appear before the commission, David Ward commented, with some sarcasm at this blog earlier this week, that given we already know that the Victoria fires were caused by global warming and arsonists and that the purpose of the Royal Commission is to confirm this, of course the Royal commission won’t want to hear from practical bushfire experts.
From Max Rheese from the Australian Environment Foundation:
The extent of this horrific disaster - by far the worst Australia has experienced - has been magnified by indifference to basic rules of fire management, ignoring the wisdom of expert fire managers and political acquiescence to the pressure of city-based green lobby groups.
This week Australia has witnessed the fatal results of misguided green activism over three decades that is steeped in ideology rather than forest science. A dogged determination to oppose realistic prescribed burn targets has produced fuel loads in many parks and reserves that are a disaster waiting to happen.
It is tragic that the "denier watchers" deny that there is a large element of blame to be attributed to the (Red) Green Movement.  We need to be aware of the danger to the community of the build-up of undeegrowth, of forest fire fuel. The aboriginals were aware of the dangers and did control burns.

Finally, I would ask the "denier watchers" if the deny:
  • the historic facts of the MWP and the LIA like the Climategate Cabal CRU?
  • that science has moved on and we now know that global warming precedes the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

The Chief Denier at "watching the Deniers" has answered at Deniers.
    New Discussion: HERE
    Thanks to John Byatt for pointing me to the Denier watchers.


    1. Of course the overarching UN body has redefined climate change to refer to anthropogenic global warming... so anything natural doesn't count. Jennifer

    2. @ Chris/CSP,

      Thanks for staring the conversation. I'm happy to have a chat and have started so on my blog here:

      I think we can all remain civil, and debate this. It is my intention to have a conversation. We may disagree on some fundemental issues, but I share a committment to freedom of speech and the right for you guys to form your Party.


    4. Chris?

      I have posted your answer link in the main post above.

      You say: "I think we can remain civil..." I hope this applies to Mr Byatt as he has been particularly nasty in various other previous discussions. Also, we are sceptics -see description above - the use of the term "denier" is in fact contrary to your wish to remain civil. It was first used to falsely and subliminally link AGW scepticism with holocaust denial. It will be hard to be civil when your use of denial is uncivil.

      You say: "We may disagree on some fundamental issues." The most basic is your claim that the science is settled. This is one of the major lies perpetrated by alarmists. It is even an unscientific statement to say that science is settled. ( In fact, the hypothesis" that man-made CO2 emissions cause runaway global warming" has been falsified - link in post above.

    5. PART 1

      Hi Geoff, I've taken a look at that WatchingtheDeniers thread ( and would have responded there but Mike has banned me, claiming that I sent an insulting comment likening him to a paedophile. I have told him that I did not send that comment but was impersonated, something that has happened several times since I started exchanging comments with three cowards who hid behind false names. Cooloola, Spatch/Phoenix.Guess-who/Lord Monckton/etc.etc.etc. and DigitalAdvisor/ConcernedCitizen teramed up on Senator Steve Fielding’s “climate change” thread in 2009 and stayed there hurling their nonsense and vicious insults at anyone who dared challenge “the consensus”. It is possible to make allowances for DigitA/CC but Spatch and Cooloola were really nasty individuals.

      Mike said last week that he was too busy at work to investigate my claim and my suggestion that he check the gravatars alongside my numerous comments and compare it with the one against the "Pete Ridley" who sent the insulting comment. (the same thing happened to several of us when exchanging opinins on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” - They ruined what had been a very informative set of exchanges. It is noticeable that he still has time to start new threads on his blog. Maybe it’s a case of not wanting to restore my rights to comment because I tell the truth about CACC. I wonder how long you will enjoy his “ .. welcome Geoff! I have no intention of censoring what you have to say”.

      I've had numerous exchanges with Ti(Moth)y on his own "Mothincarnate" blog . He is an ecologist who simply refuses to budge one inch from his faith in the CACC doctrine. He is sincere but misled and simply accepts the IPCC propaganda about our continuing use of fossil fuels leading to catastrophic changes to the different global climates without being inclined to do his own research.

      Ross Brisbane seems to have stopped contributing his nonsense comments since I “outed” him as DigitalAdvisor/ConcernedCitizen but, knowing Ross, he won’t be able to stay away so will revert to hiding behind a false name – not that it does any good because he cannot hide his inimitable version of the English language. Ross’s henchman on WatchingtheDeniers and elsewhere was John Byatt who, as you well know, used to hide behind the false name Cooloola but recently decided to have the courage of his convictions and started using his real name. I am still trying to track down impersonator Spatch/Guess-who/etc.etc.etc. and Mike could help me there if he was interested in the truth.

    6. PART 2

      Regarding the sceptical science that refutes the IPCC claims of CACC arising from our continuing use of fossil fuels, the best analysis that I have seen is by Roger Taguchi, retired Canadian science teacher of merit from Ottawa. His latest analyses appear on Judith Curry's "Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect" thread ( on Feb. 22, Feb. 7 & Feb. 9 (the last 3 major posts). I’ll have to get Rofer to post his analyses to the ScepticalScience blog (

      "Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. She currently serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union" (

      She has since Climateghate expressed her concerns about the lack of trust that the general public has in scientists, beautifully summarised by her "The Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, questions regarding bias and the corruptibility of the IPCC’s consensus-based assessment process are of substantial concern" ( For that honesty she attracted the ire of supporters of the CACC doctrine, but she soldiers on in an honest attempt to encourage open debate between "deniers" and "disciples". For that she deserves our respect.

      I hope that you can use this in your exchanges with Mike, Ti(Moth)y, John Byatt (AKA cooloola) (and perhaps Ross Brisbane – AKA DigitalAdvisor) and all of the other “disciples”.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    7. Ross Brisbane - mildly dyslectic - had a habit of writing Dr Cater for Prof.CaRter. There is a post in the thread by ianash who talks about Cater....

      Interesting also, is that Leon Ashby, who was slandered in the original post by Mike, commented yesterday but that has not yet appeared. One other of our members also submitted two comments which also have yet to appear.

    8. Hi Geoff, ianash's English is too good to be from Ross. He asks “5th question: What does The Climate Sceptic Party believe the science is showing regarding global warming ?” so maybe he’d like to read Rogher Taguchi’s analyses and refute them. I’d appreciate if you’d put that to him, but I suspect that he’ll decline the invitation because he doesn’t understand the science, only parrot’s it. Although he pleads “Please, there must be more to the debate than points as easily refutable as these” he also acknowledges “I’m a little confused”, but there is no shame in that. So are the scientists who are supposed to be “experts”, such as Professor Barry Brook, Professor/Director of Climate Change at Adelaide University.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    9. Watch out for the denier watchers, they are denying comment from President Leon Ashby, another of our members and now me.

      I put a post there saying that because they hadn't published Leon's reply (after all he was the one that Mike maligned in the original post contrary ot his own fairness rules, the also hadn't published two other replies from TCS members and because Peter had been verballed on their site by a fake Pete Ridley, I would no longer post there but would answer any comments here.

      That comment disappeared.

      So, I repeat, I will never post on that blog again. Byatt, ianash and any other of their deniers will be answered here.

    10. Hi Geoff, I see that ianash, John Byatt and now another coward hiding behind the false name Sou are exchanging their nonsense on the “Robust conversation part one: Climate Sceptics Party v Watching the Deniers” thread ( They’re as pathetic as the “three stoogies” (AKA “the duty dingbats” that kept disrupting the debates on Senator Steve Fielding’s blog (DigitA/CC, Cooloola and Spatch/Guess-who/Phoenix/etc.etc.etc.).

      You may not be aware that computer systems administrator Mike (who runs WatchingtheDeniers) has teamed up with Timothy Lubcke (a blinkered young ecologist who uses the false name Mothincarnate) and Megan Evans (a starry-eyed young ecologist working as a research assistant at Queensland University - They have started a new thread “Generation [A]daptation: the new collaborative blog wants you” ( Mike starts it with “Confession time. While I have been waging open warfare on the denial movement, secretly I have been plotting with a couple of others a new blog dealing with the variety of challenges our civilisation faces:
      * climate change
      * peak oil
      * food and water security issues
      * energy
      We have called it Generation [A]daption because those alive today and those born over the next 100 years will be living on a different planet).

      He goes on to say “Tim, Megan and I have all felt frustrated with the current level of discussion. The science is clear: the climate is changing, food security is of growing concern and we cannot rely on fossil fuels” .. We will NOT be debating the science. We will not get stuck in the endless, and now pointless discussion of whether or not climate change is real. The debate is over.
      We have looked at the floods, cyclones and fires that have swept across Australia and other parts of the world these past six months and have decided enough, is enough. It is time to act”.

      In other words they do not understand climate science so they cannot debate it. They believe that that reading about 6 months of weather events is the same thing as understanding what causes climate change so in their ignorance they propose to run around like headless chickens squarking “catastrophe, catastrophe, the end of the world is nigh”.

      What misguided young nitwits.

      All three refuse to open their minds to the possibility that the UN’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” message is purely speculative. It seems to me that they are simply using it to promote their environmentalist ambitions.

      It is noticeable that both Tim and Megan have the courage of their convictions (although misguided on the effect of our use of fossil fuels on global climates) and make no effort to hide behind false names, Mike stays in hiding - I wonder why.

      Tim is advertising this new blog on his Mothincarnate site “Heads Up: Gen[A] in on it’s way! “ thread (

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    11. I have started a new discussion on how the "Deniers" were censoring our comments - naughty people -

    12. @ Pete, we'll have it sorted this weekend.

    13. So much for Mike's promise to " ..have it sorted this weekend" - see my comment on .


    14. You simply don't learn, Pete... Do you work hard at being so inaccurate or does it just come natural?

      "He is an ecologist who simply refuses to budge one inch from his faith in the CACC doctrine. He is sincere but misled and simply accepts the IPCC propaganda about our continuing use of fossil fuels leading to catastrophic changes to the different global climates without being inclined to do his own research."

      1) I refer to the sci lit, not reports on the sci lit (ie. IPCC) which is clear within my work, 2) I don't know how many times I've told you that I don't use "catastrophic", but yet you persist with this ridiculous strawman, 3) My own research? I'm very certain that I've read the entirety of more sci lit than you have and I've built, maintain and analyse the data from an eddy covariance monitoring station. Everything about your quote above is incorrect and explained to you previously.

      "Timothy Lubcke (a blinkered young ecologist who uses the false name Mothincarnate)"

      Most people have screen names and 'Moth', being found in my name, is my nickname - there's nothing wrong with that and I have never had a problem using my real name, so why you mention "false name" seems odd. Blinkered? Refer above - clearly you're not looking at the bigger picture, instead maintaining some delusion of conspiracy and governmental plot regardless of all else.

      "In other words they do not understand climate science so they cannot debate it."

      No, we're just sick of repeating ourselves to arrogant old fools like you, who repeat the same unsubstantiated nonsense beyond all sanity. No-one with a fully functional brain would continue to encourage this "debate" as you call it when clearly it has no concern for reason. Hey, why not instead promote innovation, development and prosperity - Gen[A].

      Of course, being an old tech, I'm not surprised you hate technological advancements that go beyond you comprehension, thus you encourage industrial stagnation.

      "What misguided young nitwits."

      Brave enough to insult me to others, but change your tone when you seek out my assistance. You're a two faced coward who has no concern for scientific understanding and a paranoid delusion of hidden communists.

      "All three refuse to open their minds to the possibility that the UN’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” message is purely speculative. It seems to me that they are simply using it to promote their environmentalist ambitions."

      Dang, you got me.. I'm only after the cash.. looks like I'll have to give my Ferrari back to the UN... Give me a brake! At least I've gone to the effort in acquiring tertiary qualifications in environmental science (which largely shapes me interest in Gen[A]) instead of pretending to have a clue. I suspect you're upset because it's already quite clear that none of your nonsense is likely to be posted there.

      "Tim is advertising this new blog on his Mothincarnate site “Heads Up: Gen[A] in on it’s way! “ thread ("

      Well I'm happy that you're keeping up to date with me blog - you never know, you might actually learn something some day!

      If you're going to talk about me (oh, and I am flattered that you do so), try a little harder to get your facts straight and honestly, you really must stop with the "catastrophic" strawman - it's getting old (or do you just use it to put the boot in when you think you can get away with it?)

    15. I might add Pete, that it's pretty disgusting that in a place, that if it weren't sheer accident I'd have never have came by, you write such nonsense about me (that I wouldn't have otherwise had a chance to defend myself about) that seems aimed to inspire hatred of myself and my profession.
      It really demonstrates your character.


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