More dishonesty from the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics party’s official blogger?

Well according to one of my readers, it seems I have raised the ire of Geoffrey Brown the official blogger for the NCTCS party. He has posted yet another rambling diatribe and made me the centre of attention. Excuse me readers while I address Geoffrey directly.

Geoffrey I really am flattered. I’ll tell you why. It’s because I know you have posted this last bit of nonsense behind the safety blanket of screening any comments I might make in reply. You’ve done it before when I have called you out. I understand your insecurity, I really do but you can rest assured, unlike you, I won’t do that. I have far more integrity and am not a coward. So, given that you won’t post my response to your garbage, I’ll have to do it here. I invite you to respond.

Let’s see what you have written….

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.

Given the definition you provided for a troll is someone who posts off-topic, I don’t fit into that category. I have only ever posted on-topic. Even the numerous posts I made on your blog that you screened out were on-topic. Just because the on-topic truth made you look like a fool doesn’t make me a troll. But that aside, if you want to engage in silly name-calling then be my guest. Now as for your little bit of failed logic here. I don’t see a contradiction at all. I often tell my children they are clever when they make a childish joke. My childish children also think they are clever. Contradiction? I didn’t think so. So too, the person being childish by picking on my grammar also thought he was being clever. I was just agreeing. So, Geoffrey, all I can say is Logic, you’re doing it wrong.

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.

The fact that I refuse to agree with a strawman does not mean I am agreeing with any of your nonsense. Let’s try it. 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. Perhaps you should come over to the side of logic, reason, facts and honesty and put wilfully ignorant and painfully stupid deniers in their place. See how that works?

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.

Well Geoffrey, you have mentioned a number of things here. For a start, when it comes to climate science, Bob Carter is only respected by deniers, but no doubt if he ever remembers that he is a scientist, he will come to accept the consensus position at which point he will stop being the darling of the denier movement and be outcast, just like Muller. Ironically, at that point he will actually gain respect. But who the hell are you to accuse me of defaming scientists? You accuse any scientist who says what you don’t want to hear of fraud. The height of hypocrisy.

But let’s discuss my pseudonym … again. I told you before that there are legal reasons to do with the Family Court as to why I retain some anonymity. These are personal and of a legal nature and I told you that. What I take offence at here Geoffrey is you holding that knowledge and trying to make me out to be something I am not. That is your most cowardly act yet and you know it.

But what is the real reason you don’t want to give my pseudonym “air”?  Could it be that people might be tempted to come here to my blog and see where I questioned your honesty Geoffrey? I don’t blame you. It’s pretty embarrassing being caught out like that. I mean, pretending you didn’t know who I was when the quotes you attributed to me were cut and pasted directly from my blog. tsk tsk tsk.

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.

Bob Carter is well and truly on the record as denying that CO2 is a forcing agent. I don’t need to rehash what is already on the public record as well as on the NCTCS party website. I raised the issue of Bob’s opinion on peer review and he responded. He admits that there is no guarantee that any of the things he has ever published are accurate. I actually disagree with him. I am confident that his extensive publishing record in his actual field of paleontology are accurate because of the peer review process. But then you raise Climategate despite all the independent inquiries finding nothing wrong? Really? And de Freitas? The irony here is that he was allowing substandard papers to be published for his pals. More hypocrisy Geoffrey? Let me get this straight. It’s ok to let dodgy papers get published if they happen to agree with your backward position but its not ok to demand high standards of scientific publication? That is the only way, Geoffrey that you and your ilk can ever feel you have legitimacy. You bitch and moan about peer review but as soon as there is a sniff of peer reviewed science that you think supports your position, peer review is King. I suppose we can add fickleness to your list of character flaws.

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.
From HadCRUT3:- …

I have looked at the science and it all points to the consensus position. It’s a shame, Geoffrey that even if you bothered to look at the science, you wouldn’t understand it.

Miskolczi mixes up emission with emissivity when applying Kirchhoff’s Law. He proposes greenhouse gas/ water vapour interactions that violate Clausius-Clapeyron Law which is backed up by empirical observations. He also made errors about the gravitational bounds of the atmosphere. Essentially he was wrong. Miklos Zagoni….oh that Miklos Zagoni who, until the billboard fiasco that you seem to think was a good idea happened, was in bed with Heartland? The same Miklos Zagoni who agrees with his mate Miskolczi and his fundamental errors? How embarrassing. David Evans is the computer modeller guy right? Well rather than fill my blog up with the littany of errors he has made just go here and read about it. Finally, Jo Nova is a microbiologist. If you want to keep throwing up non-experts as experts Iwill keep suggesting you go to a vet for any medical treatment you need.

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…..

So there you have it Geoffrey, more of your behaviour exposed. And you represent the views of the NCTCS party? Interesting. Feel free to come here and rebutt to your heart’s content. I won’t screen you out as you do me. I embrace democracy and freedom of speech.

UPDATE

Well,  just as I suspected, Geoffrey did the cowardly thing again and rather than post a rebuttal here, decided to do it over at his blog so he can have complete editorial control. What has he got to fear?

Anyway, here is his rebuttal.

Geoff’s childish and cowardly “rebuttal”

As usual, I have tried to respond at his blog but it won’t be posted despite my adhering to his rules. If he was going to be completely honest, he would change his rules to include, “Posts will not be published if they provide evidence that I am a cowardly weasel.” So, here is what my response to Geoffrey was.

My response to Geoffrey, that won’t get published….again.

 

Again, I say to you Geoffrey (yes I know you’re reading this), don’t be a coward. Don’t play these childish games. Man up. You are doing yourself a disservice by engaging in these questionable and very juvenile tactics.

 

Comments Off

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Comments are closed.