Piers Throws Benny Under the Bus
Eli was wondering who Piers would throw under the bus, and guess what, it's Benny! Still, go over there and enjoy the fun. Tim points out that Cthulhu is on fire
Very chicken and egg that. Akerman's incoherence is reaching new levels (watch out for editing, the original was:Unless we misquote Houghton no one will listen.
Cthulhu (Reply) Thu 18 Feb 10 (05:27pm)
It would not appear that the quotation which was sent to me and used by be in 2006 appeared at least as early as 1994 and was used by Benny Peiser - it may well be that further investigation will produce an even earlier appearance. As yet I have still not heard from Houghton, only those who still stick by the discredited IPCC. What does this say?
Piers Akerman
Fri 19 Feb 10 (11:49am)
Let us consider this carefully :))))))."It would not appear that the quotation which was sent to me and used by be in 2006"Wha????:)
"appeared at least as early as 1994 and was used by Benny Peiser"Mr. Peiser, how do you account for those tire tracks on your tummy?
" - it may well be that further investigation will produce an even earlier appearance."Given that the book you claimed it was published in was published in 1994 that would be a good trick.
"As yet I have still not heard from Houghton, only those who still stick by the discredited IPCC. What does this say? "You probably have not heard from Houghton because he has better sense than to try and deal with a fool. OTOH Eli is enjoying himself, and Benny sends love.
Cheers:)
Keep the pressure up.
Posts
15 comments:
Hooray! A victory at last.
Now all we need do is disprove the other scandalous misquotes, such as those attributed to Gore, Folland, Lovelock and Schneider, then people will trust us again. (Rubs lucky rabbits foot.)
Cthulu, that was brilliant.
Chris S:
I'm afraid that people who believe in green helicopters will never trust us...
Chris S: Already got a hit. The website you linked to has a quote from Stephen Schneider:
"We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Some, well, important aspects have been cut off there. Here's the full quote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Hey, silwy wabbits,
If you haven't yet heard, the esteemed Texas State Climatologist, Dr. John Nielson-Gammon, is making his case ont the Texas Governor's Perry's lawsuit against the EPA over at The Wonk Room:
Texas State Climatologist Disputes State’s Denier Petition: Greenhouse Gases ‘Clearly Present A Danger To The Public Welfare’.
and at Joe Romm's Climate Progress:
Texas state climatologist disputes state’s anti-science petition: Greenhouse gases “clearly present a danger to the public welfare.”
Bring friends, lots of 'em.
There are still some credible journalists out there who get what is going on here-- This by Jeffrey Sachs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science#start-of-comments
After reading that I felt better about the world, then I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. OMG. He must have hit the nail on the head b/c those in denial are fuming.
Jeffrey needs our support.
MapleLeaf
He must have hit the nail on the head b/c those in denial are fuming.
What else would you expect from recycled tobacco apologists but the spew of toxic fumes?
Cymraeg llygoden
Correction, as DC kindly point out to me, Jeffrey is not a journalist. Sorry for the confusion.
COuld the tide be turning? Probably not, but one remains hopeful.
MapleLeaf
Is this the motivation of such journalists? Sheer ego?
Notice how the Chicago Tribune editorial board makes a case using false statements.
Notice how they they don't want to be blamed for destroying the earth so include a caveat to their smugness that despite scientists being all a bunch of egotistical asses, we do agree that global warming is real.
Notice the self critic they employ to deliver a mea culpa for all climate scientists.
Notice their sole motivation spelled out in the last sentence of this editorial.
I'm on my way out back of my office to vomit in disgust.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-climate-20100216,0,2980279.story
So says scared mouse.
Ah, it appears he's being subtle:
"appeared at least as early as 1994 and was used by Benny Peiser"
...
" - it may well be that further investigation will produce an even earlier appearance."
Which amounts to Akerman saying he has no proof that Peiser didn't make it up, but someone may well find some, eh?
Like you said: Piers bussed Benny.
thefordprefect
I rather like the mis-quote from the Club of Rome:
the mis-quote:
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
---------------------------
The real quote:
http://www.archive.org/download/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
The common enemy of humanity is Man
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
-----------------------------
somewhat different!
> Green-Agenda.com
Wow, what a bad source.
Thanks for catching their faking a "quotation" to misrepresent the source. There's one more bunch of liars to watch out for.
Interestingly, there are a lot of people posting links to them just recently.
New face for the old bogosity?
> Green-Agenda.com
Well, this took about ten minutes of reading their proponents' stuff posted to comment threads everywhere in the last few months, to pull out the common theme. This finds the core of the stuff:
http://www.google.com/search?q="green-agenda.com"+Larouche
I can't tell if they're a project of, or merely a very popular site with, that particular group.
Someone good at tracking IPs or funds can probably suss it out.
Well, green-agenda.com is written by someone in New Zealand, possibly Christchurch.
@Hank Roberts
Larouche,
Never come across them before.
What a truly screwed up, frightening bunch of people.
Post a Comment