It’s called Green Thuggery. Examples abound on the internet. And in real life.
Then it’s quite a surprise that you didn’t provide any examples of scientists trying to blow people up for not cutting their carbon emissions.
Your zealotry is showing. badly.
In contrast to yours, which is showing exceedingly well.
Your use of the derogatory word “denier” shows us that. The term “denier” has been used for many years to denigrate those who are holocaust deniers.
Oh, please. Are you really so desperate to avoid addressing the substance of the argument that you will feign offence at a word
I didn’t even use? Or would you rather people thought you
couldn’t even tell that text was quoted despite me
indenting it and putting the URL where it came from immediately afterwards?
I have to assume that not only did you not bother following the link, but you never actually listened to the recording of Ball’s presentation, either. It’s a shame because it’s really quite funny – he clearly expected to be talking to people who were, well, like you, frankly, but instead found himself talking to a group of not only scientifically literate students, but scientifically literate students who were
actually working on the very things he was trying his best to misrepresent.
This exchange is hilarious:
NOTE FOR JOHN: THE FOLLOWING IS QUOTED TEXT!
“Here’s what Maurice Strong did with the IPCC: he defined a changing climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity. Don’t look at what nature’s doing, only at what the human causes are.”
Student: (unintelligible)
Ball: “Yes, but they don’t look at the natural climate variability.”
Student sotto voce “not true, we look at natural variation”
Ball, offering a new slide: “This is the definition produced by the United Nations Environment Program which was then adopted by the IPCC. This is the definition of what they’re directed to look at. They’re directed to only look at climate change that is due to human activity.”
Student: “What about that whole second half (of the definition printed on the slide): ‘in addition to natural climate variability.’”
Ball: “Yeah, but they don’t do that.”
Student: “But it just says to do it.”
Ball: “You look at the list of forcings they have; it’s only those forcings caused by human activity.”
Student: “You’re saying that volcanoes are caused by humans?”
Ball: “Well exactly. The volcanoes is one and look at the thing I showed you with Milankovich.”
Student: “Yeah, but the IPCC accounts for volcanic activity AND Milankovich cycles.”
Ball: “They identify them, but they do not consider them in their models ….”
Student: “They certainly do ….”
Ball: “No then don’t ….”
Student: “Yes they do: I run models … ((interrupted)”
END OF QUOTED TEXT.
Then he tries to change the subject to aerosols but a girl unsuccessfully tries to get him to go back to his previous point about Milankovitch cycles and concede that he was clearly wrong. He claims to not understand the point being made.
The AGW brigade have tried to use that word to lump in anyone who is sceptical of the AGW theory into the holocaust denier school of thought. What hypocrisy. You accuse me of denigrating so called climate scientists yet you willingly label Ball as a “denier”. You are a cherry picker.
For someone with such a tenuous grasp on the matters at hand, you are very quick to accuse
others of malfeasance.
For the record, the
reason I have been using silly constructions like “Anti-AGW” is precisely to avoid
stupid arguments like this. I find it ridiculous that we have become so politically correct these days that a perfectly valid and accurate description of someone’s attitude cannot be used because the same word was
also used for something else in the past, but I have been willing to ignore that for the sake of focussing on the issues. I did not count on the level of desperation some people obviously have to feel offended.
Now lets have a look at some of the cherries you chose to hang your hat on -
Yes, let’s. There is a
reason I chose those people – they are
exactly the same people that people like you
should be regarding with awe and instead feel qualified to judge despite having absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
James Hanson - condemned by his own NASA supervisor as having brought disgrace onto that esteemed organisation.
First fact check: Was John S. Theon
actually Hansen’s supervisor?
Hansen responded to Theon’s attack by saying: “John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least. What he can legitimately say is that he had a reasonably high position in the Headquarters bureaucracy.” (Note to John: The stuff in quotes is a quote.)
Theon responded by saying: “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.” (Note to John: The stuff in quotes is a quote.)
In other words, Theon was a money man at NASA HQ who administered project funding. If you have to say you are “in effect” X, then it means you are not
in reality X.
That sure makes a difference, eh? Suddenly he goes from Hansen’s “boss” whom one would assume would have intimite knowledge of him and his activities to being an
administrator in a different state who Hansen cannot even recall interacting with.
