The CSP – spreading lies like the weed in it’s header.

Do I have a degree in genetics? How about molecular biology? Geology? I studied these subjects at great length during my undergraduate years. I know I have a very good understanding of them. Is that enough for me to claim I have a degree in them? In short, no. I’m an ecologist. That was my major.

Does Anthony Cox, have a degree in climatology? Don’t ask me? Ask him, just as Michael brown did. I’ll provide a link to the entire conversation but here are the screenshots to save you from scrolling for miles.

He then goes on to list the subjects as well as text books and whatnot and I urge you to check out his complete post at the link I provided. What I love about this response is Anthony’s reference to age. To paraphrase, “I’m older than you therefore….”. Anyway, after reviewing Anthony’s detailed list….

So, what is left for Anthony to do? Apart from go on the attack somewhere else where rebuttal comments can be filtered (seems to be a pattern of behaviour within that group), he posts this…

So, it is apparently “unreasonable” for Mike Brown to suggest that Anthony Cox doesn’t have the qualification he claims to have when that is actually the truth of it. The only possible reason that the CSP could have for inflating Anthony Cox’s qualification on their website is to add credibility to their party. They would love to have a real climatologist in their AGW denial political party. But they don’t. Why not just say, “Anthony Cox studied some climatology subjects as part of an undergradute Bachelor of Arts degree.”? At least that is truthful. Speaking of truth, I have highlighted the MO of another of their mob previously. So what is it with them? Remember, birds of a feather flock together, and they want to get turkeys into the Senate.

26 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

26 responses to “The CSP – spreading lies like the weed in it’s header.

  1. john byatt

    ABC sorted him out out

    Profile at ABC unleashed,

    Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics. He has a degree in law and is a regular contributor to science blogs and the media.

    Their treasurer Geoff Brown cannot work out percentages .
    Their president Leon Ashby tries to push evidence based god videos onto children

    motley crew

  2. john byatt

    A self proclaimed climate scientist that references a fucking blog,

    anthony cox :
    11 May 2011 6:03:23pm
    There is nothing remarkable about the Arctic temperature:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/21/visualizing-arctic-coverage/#more-19789

    If one is still inclined to believe that the Arctic is melting perhaps one should talk to the intrepid Catlin expedition team members.

    Alert moderator

    Glenn Tamblyn :
    11 May 2011 7:04:30pm
    Anthony.

    What exactly was the point of that link. The WUWT piece was about comparing GISS vs UAH measurements of arctic temperature and who had better coverage, not whether warming has occurred. And Anthony made some howlers in the piece. He has used a plot of channel 1 on the AMSU aboard NOAA-15 when UAH (& RSS) don’t use channel 1 at all for their analysis, they use channel 5 for the lower troposphere and then apply compensations to it to remove cooling biases from the signal caused by 15-20% of the signal originating in the stratosphere. Then he observes that the raw data from NASA goes all the way to the poles “It appears from the NOAA/UAH map geography that they have coverage further north than 82.5°.”

    He obviously knows so little about the subject that he doesn’t realise that the UAH/RSS results ARE cut-off at 82.5N (and 70S) because spurious signal returns from the ice above those latitudes render the analysis meaningless that high up.

    Anthony has revealed himself for the ill-informed prat that he actually is.

    Thus, your referencing of an irrelevent article, from someone who spends a lot of time pulling his foot out of his mouth raises serious questions about your bona-fides as the Secretary of the Climate Sceptics Party. To be taken seriously the CSP needs to be much better informed and operate at a level at least somewhat above a Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted blogosphere wingnut.

    Lift your game Anthony.

  3. john byatt

    The pratt was the village idiot at deltoid for a while

    Anthony Cox — cohenite

    google cohenite deltoid for some laughs,

    ,

  4. Anthony Cox may be older than me (I’m 47), and he may have more textbooks than me, but he seems to have difficulty reading even a single sentence. Read it again, Anthony, I said Nova is a microbiologist…

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/06/trolling-and-denying.html?showComment=1340788896899#c3484435350928224552

    • john byatt

      Hard to believe that he is still quoting Paltridge, even Dr Weston Allen NCTCSP Blog, threw him under a bus recently

      • Unlike Mike, I cannot be bothered to swap references in an attempt to alter people’s opinions – I just go for the jugular and confront them with the reality that they are conspiracy theorists…

  5. john byatt

    See that geoff is once again displaying his ignorance
    seems to think that all pH levels above 7 are equal and therefore any drop in pH that does not result in a level below 7 is innocuous to creatures with carbonate shells.

    When carbonate formation loses equilibrium

    The atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves very easily in water. This is well known in mineral water, which often has carbon dioxide added. In the dissolution process, carbon dioxide reacts with the water molecules according to the equation below. When carbon dioxide mixes with the water it is partially converted into carbonic acid, hydrogen ions (H+), bicarbonate (HCO3–), and carbonate ions (CO32–). Seawater can assimilate much more CO2 than fresh water. The reason for this is that bicarbonate and carbonate ions have been perpetually discharged into the sea over aeons. The carbonate reacts with CO2 to form bicarbonate, which leads to a further uptake of CO2 and a decline of the CO32– concentration in the ocean. All of the CO2-derived chemical species in the water together, i.e. carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions, are referred to as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). This carbonic acid-carbonate equilibrium determines the amount of free protons in the seawater and thus the pH value.

    CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3– ↔ 2 H+ + CO32–

    In summary, the reaction of carbon dioxide in seawater proceeds as follows: First the carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This then reacts with carbonate ions and forms bicarbonate. Over the long term, ocean acidification leads to a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ions in seawater. A 50 per cent decline of the levels is predicted, for example, if there is a drop in pH levels of 0.4 units. This would be fatal. Because carbonate ions together with calcium ions (als CaCO3) form the basic building blocks of carbonate skeletons and shells, this decline would have a direct effect on the ability of many marine organisms to produce biogenic carbonate. In extreme cases this can even lead to the dissolution of existing carbonate shells, skeletons and other structures.

    • It stems from ignorance that pH is a logarithmic scale.

    • John, what do you mean by saying Geoff thinks all pH > 7 are equal? Where has he said such a silly thing? In the meantime, thanks for explaining why only a very slight drop in ocean acidity (a fraction of a pH unit) will be enough to stop sea creatures from being able to form their shells. I had heard this and new pH was a logarithmic scale of H+ ion activity (or whatever) but still had not worked through the implications…

      • john byatt

        He always makes the point that the oceans are alkaline and will always be alkaline, thus their is no threat to ocean creatures that depend on current PH levels, he thinks that anything above pH7 is fine as it still alkaline, and has said so in the past. he therefore has no clue that the ocean does not have to be acid to be corrosive to carbonate shells .

  6. john byatt

    As an Analogy Geoff would not see any difference in drinking lemon juice or sulphuric acid,

    or in drinking an alkaline solution (milk) and caustic soda,

    like it ?

    • I think the problem here is that Geoff’s brain has a very low level of truth solubility; and/or has reached its saturation limit w.r.t. bullshit (meaning that it cannot soak anymore up so it is just leaking out everywhere).

  7. john byatt

    Geoff is going to confuse the fuck out of everyone with this,

    The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog
    The Official blog of Australia’s NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS)

    To become a member of the party, go to http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/members.html ACT residents:- ACT membership is free

    FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2012
    Oceans are not acidic
    This blog has previously written that the oceans are acidic.

    Image: National Geographic
    Letter from The Olympian (link) by Ken Schlichte, an expert forest soil scientist in western Washington

    EPA’s efforts will have no effect

    Oceans are not acidic, despite the front-page headline, “EPA tackles acidic oceans.”

    Oceans are actually alkaline with a surface pH of around 8.1.

    • Classic. Yes they are no they’re not are so are not.
      It’s interesting to note that the word acidification has been used. I was a little surprised. Many of the hardcore idiots will say that the oceans aren’t undergoing acidification because they are alkaline. According to them, they are becoming less basic, which of course is the same thing. It’s all about the word.

    • How about this one over there now?

      Tim Andrews, of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance writes
      “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

      I didn’t realise Tim Andrews was a politician.

  8. john byatt

    Loved this bit,

    EPA efforts to control current greenhouse gas emissions will therefore have no effect on the pH of this deep ocean water for many years.

    no shit sherlock, read that again geoff, in essence you are saying that it will have and effect

  9. john byatt

    Viv Forbes, one of the most active disinformers on climate change is a director of stanmore coal.

    http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2012/06/29/stanmore-coal-lands-hong-kong-deal/#comments

    • I love this. In a response to “criticism in the media” about him having vested interests he said, “I do not condone pollution or environmental degradation.” What the fuck does he think coal mining is? Actually that is a rhetorical question because he knows very well what coal mining is.

  10. john byatt

    Classic, geoff may have been here,

    cop the changes on his ocean acid/alkaline post

  11. john byatt

    No comment option on minister for emergency response post

    Newman’s war on solar tariffs

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4107382.html