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.


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.



Filed under Rogue's Gallery

19 responses to “More dishonesty from the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics party’s official blogger?

  1. john byatt

    You very rarely read a comment on ” We do not deny climate change, that is why we call ourselves the climate sceptics Blog.
    About the only comments there are spam, perhaps geoff does not know what spam is?.

    You do need a headvice to read comments at WTFUWT though,
    post goes up ” CO2 lags temperature”

    Then we have ” We do not deny AGW, just that it will be bad”



  2. john byatt

    Mike, that will be way above geoffrey’s head, this is a guy that looks at the percentages of first and multi year ice at the end of the melt and states , ” look the amount of multi year ice is increasing as compared to first year ice”


    • I know John, but the point here is not to educate Geoffrey but to highlight how little he knows. I also like to point out that his ignorance is representative of a political party that wants to step boldly forward into the 1950’s with policies based on the highest level of wilful ignorance I’ve ever seen. My biggest concern is the childishishnes he employs when cornered. If that’s the way his party is going to behave….well, given they aren’t really a threat, I suppose it doesn’t really matter.

      • john byatt

        Fully realised that Mike, you cannot educate geoff, you can however as you have done and is worth doing, show him up for the nonsense that he posts, His mindset is one of the fundamentalist anti science brigade at justgrounds , becoming more extreme in their right wing philosphy, dissent on their anti climate change position is not tolerated, free speech is denied by these so called champions of free speech.

  3. john byatt

    Bet that no one could join this group and survive a week without being banned if you speak out against their moronic coal miner
    Viv Forbes


    • Thanks for that link John. I need to learn how to scroll with my hands tied behind my back because the urge to faceplam constantly is overwhelming. Science illiteracy aside, if that mob had their way, there wouldn’t be single tree left standing in the brigalow and everyone would be employed raping the earth of every resource. There’d be a coal-fired power plant on every street corner spewing “plant food” into the atmosphere. Completely nuts.

  4. john byatt

    At “we call ourselves the climate sceptics because we believe that the climate changes” blog

    Geoff BrownJune 24, 2012 9:23 AM

    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.

    Apparently calling anyone a troll is within the rules at geoff’s blog, he also uses the term denier. A Dr Wes Allen, calls himself a realist, he has been the only person ever in the gympie times to use the term denier, In the sense that he applies it then it would refer to both Viv Forbes and geoffrey brown, ironically geoff brown has a post praising Dr Wes Allen, reading that, I found Allens reference to a paper by Birda et al, was wondering how he ended up with Birda instead of the guys name, Bird,

    Google search changes italics to arial, it is only when you click on the link that you find the italic “a” after Bird denotes his uni affiliation,
    Allen has written up his whole argument without even reading the paper, a cut and paste from NIPCC then a search to find a reference for that, rather than exposing the NIPCC ref…… FFS

    • Classic. Of course he won’t promote this blog over there and for the reason you’ve mentioned and I’ve outlined. As much as he won’t mention this blog over there, I know he’s already been here this morning so its just a matter of time before he posts more nonsense over there. He won’t comment here though.

    • Those nasty little italics affiliations can be a real problem if you lack integrity.

  5. john byatt

    Viv Forbes, ” If forests are planted around power stations the trees will grow faster”

    Farmers and experts say coal-fired power plant emissions killing … › News from The Post-Standard › Breaking News28 Dec 2010 – Trees are barren, or covered in gray, dying foliage and peeling bark. … where pecan growers and ranchers have watched trees die slow, agonizing deaths. … to be the culprit: the Fayette Power Project – a coal-fired power plant for … near where horticulturalist Jim Berry, who owns a wholesale nursery in …

  6. john byatt

    Mr “we called ourselves the climate sceptics before we realised that the climate changes” turned up at unleashed this week commenting on a piece by Mungo,,

    geoff :
    20 Jun 2012 5:49:18pm
    “And then there is the clearest indicator of all, denial of climate change.”

    This statement demonstrates a degree of ignorance.

    The vast majority of sceptics have never denied that the climate changes. Perhaps Mungo and his merry band of followers are the real deniers of climate change since they seemingly can’t grasp the basic fact that the climate was changing millions of years before the industrial age.

    “In the past, this was the domain of those with a vested interest, such as coal owners, and the barking mad, such as Cardinal George Pell and shock jock Alan Jones, each of whom has his own reasons for believing in fairy tales.”

    Mungo conveniently forgets about those with vested interests in pushing renewable energy such as Al ‘I made a documentary about climate change even though I dont know anything about climate science’ Gore and Tim ‘Every prediction I made turns out to be a dud’ Flannery.

    If you want to look at irrational, then look no further than those who think you can change the global temperature through a tax or an emissions trading scheme. They really are the ones living in fairyland.

    Alert moderator

    john byatt :
    20 Jun 2012 6:59:51pm
    So why do they call themselves the climate sceptics if they are not sceptical about climate change,

    read the nonsense on the climate sceptics blog for goodness sake,

    Alert moderator

    I’m bad

  7. john byatt

    This letter from me was replied to yesterday by a fire breathing Xtian fundamenalist proving my point, anti science ignoramous, the letter was in reply to Wes claiming that i must have a vested interest and attacking Tim Flannery

    Following on in Dr Wes Allen’s religious theme relating to the Earth goddess Gaia ( The Gympie Times June 2 ). Many Christians tell me that their sky God gave man dominion over the earth, but that we must respect and be good stewards of his creation, they acknowledge that we must also accept the science and act on climate change. I respect their beliefs.

    Others will tell you that their sky God placed fossil fuels into this earth, created only a few thousand years ago, for the benefit of mankind, their God would never allow harm to come to us from the use of that gift. There are also those worshipers of the sky God who believe that these current events are the harbingers of the end times, the prophecies of their scriptures unfolding, nothing we could do will change that, we must accept the judgment. One world governments and anti-Christs run amok in the conspiracy theory of their own nightmares, some denominations even believe that this sky God, like Long Tall Jones rescuing fair maiden from the oncoming locomotive, will turn up just in the nick of time to halt this human caused, catastrophe in the making.

    Gaia Theory is now a part of many science disciplines, It has grown from Lovelock’s original book into the understanding of the ecological partnership shared by all living species and the Earth itself. When I first read the book, thirty years ago, I dismissed it as religious nonsense, it was just another version of the sky God myths, an earth created for the benefit of humans alone, with the ability to maintain the world’s climate in a Goldilocks, just right for humans utopia.
    Much of Lovelock’s book, Gaia (the title suggested by a friend) we now know to be nonsense, we also know that much of it was true, Gaia does not play favorites. We ignore Tim Flannery at our grandchildren’s peril, they alone are the vested interest for every one of us.

    • I tried to post a comment on Geoff’s blog but it seems he is either unwilling or unable to answer a simple question.

      • I’ve been having a bit of fun. I’ve proven beyond doubt that he’s blocking me from commenting and now he’s come over here trying to make out that that’s what I’m doing. I feel like I’m back in primary school. I’ve given up on him because he’s taking up too much of my time and its pointless. He and his party are so backward the temperature could rise by 20 degrees overnight and they’d still deny there’s a problem.

  8. Mike, I hope you are keeping an eye on my contribution to Geoff’s bog on this (oops, sorry, I meant bLog).

    Anthony Cox has now tried to argue with me but, just in case my response to his insane response never appears… I just had to point out that:
    1. In response to my suggestion that lawyers should not be relied upon to arbitrate on climate science – he quoted a microbiologist (Joanne Nova); and
    2. In response to my citation of Nordaus the realist (circa 2012) – he quoted Nordhaus the skeptic (circa 2007).

    I must admit, I was tempted to think he is a climate realist just trying to make fake skeptic look stupid.

    • I was talking to someone today about talking to deniers and she said, “I don’t know why you bother. It’s like to talking to the insane.” I actually have to agree so I haven’t bothered to go over there. But I just did on your advice and I see Geoffrey is trying to make out that I have been blocking his comments. He’s put his own time stamps on the alleged comments in question. I knew what he was up to when he came here asking about two comments he claims he tried to post but I know he didn’t. Its ridiculous. His comments everywhere are a tribute to his stupidity. I have no need to block him because he does my job for me. I wish he would come here and post more often. Oh well. He says he won’t be back but I can guarantee he’ll be snooping around trying to find some snippets to post. Won’t you Geoffrey? You’ve been caught out lying and you’ve been outsmarted and you know it and you don’t like it. The big thing to do would be to man up and admit it. The other thing to do would be to tell more lies. You’re like a 5 year old and for someone your age that is plain sad. You have my pity.

  9. Pingback: Denier comment of the day September 12, 2012 | uknowispeaksense