There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.


 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  7  8  9  10  11  ...  97  98  »» 
#121 | Posted: 14 Oct 2010 17:34
..........which is why I posted it quick, to beat you. haha

Look at this one.
#122 | Posted: 14 Oct 2010 17:34

His latest - October 13th, 2010

What on earth is Bob Ward?

Then it goes on (read it here it`s very good as usual) /
Then James sums it up for us nicely...

"This is far, far more than I ever wanted to write about Bob Ward and I promise never to sully my typing fingers in this way ever again. Why did I do so? Simple. Because as we approach endgame in the great Climate Change Pseudoscience Fraud, people will understandably want to know how this massive con trick was able to penetrate so deep into the public psyche."
#123 | Posted: 14 Oct 2010 18:42

BBC told to ensure balance on climate change
Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for impartiality in the corporation's science coverage.


The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues.
Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial "Climategate" leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, even though he had been in possession of them for some time.

Climate change sceptics have also accused the BBC of not properly reporting "Glaciergate", when a study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that glaciers would melt by 2035 was discredited.

But the BBC's new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public, say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation's obligation to be impartial.

"The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected," said BBC trustee Alison Hastings.

"In addition the new guideline extends the definition of 'controversial' subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters."


However James Delingpole, a prominent climate change sceptic, yesterday said that he predicted little movement in the BBC's environmental stories.

"It's highly unlikely that they'll be more balanced in their coverage," he said.
"It's a whole cultural thing at the BBC – that people who don't believe are just 'flat earthers'. Whenever they invite dissenters like me on to debates, they surround us with 'warmists'. On Any Questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby does his best to be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden."

WELL WELL on-climate-change.html

Do you think they will allow Lord Monckton on to piss all over Al gore and anyone else who gets in his way? FUCK will they.
#124 | Posted: 15 Oct 2010 17:23 | Edited by: Starseed
Global Warming Causes Snow to hit Britain!

Forecasters Positive Weather Solutions have already predicted a 'white-out' winter almost as harsh as last winter - with widespread snow, temperatures down to -4F (-20C) and transport chaos

Last winter was the coldest for 31 years, with an average UK-wide temperature of just 34F (1.5C).
#125 | Posted: 15 Oct 2010 17:30
Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool

When Professor Hal Lewis wrote his now-famous letter of resignation to the American Physical Society earlier this week, climate change alarmists were quick to respond with their usual wit, aplomb and generosity. Here were some of the excuses they offered as to why this terrible man must at all costs not be taken seriously.

1. Professor Hal Lewis is a physicist not a climate scientist and therefore unqualified to comment on climate science.

2. He's old. Old people are, like, really senile.

3. We haven't heard of him before. How can what he say matters if we haven't heard of him before?

4. He's probably just some shill for Big Oil, like all the other deniers.

5. He hasn't published enough papers, so he's hardly a real scientist

6. OK, so maybe there's a possibility he's not senile, but he's definitely too old to have stayed in touch with all the zippy modern climate stuff that the experts at places like RealClimate know about.

Some of these views you'll see expressed by the host of trolls who flocked to my popular blog on the subject. Others, you'll find expressed by bloggers like this character here (sample quote: "Who is Hal Lewis? I've been studying physics for 30 years, and I've never heard of him.") and this blogger here who calls himself the Stoat but whose real name is William Connolley.

Here is Connolley in action on his blog, scrabbling for dirt:
So, where are the papers? You can't have a scientific career without papers. There are some early ones – The Multiple Production of Mesons from 1948 with Oppenheimer, no less. Or Multiple Scattering in an Infinite Medium, 1950 – worthy maths-ish thing, I'd guess. But past the late-50's early 60's it suddenly gets very thin indeed. I'd guess, without knowing more, that he gave up science and moved into admin.

And here he is, in his role as a Wikipedia editor caught by Watts Up With That doctoring Professor Lewis's Wikipedia entry so as to edit out that all-important resignation letter.
William Connolley – a green party activist – has form in this regard. Lots of form – as I first reported here last year – drawing on Lawrence Solomon's definitive National Post expose "How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles".

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Anyway, Connolley's latest escapade has proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back for the Wiki administrators. He has now been banned from writing on "Climate Change" for Wikipedia. (H/T Bishop Hill). As too has the similarly fanatical KimDabelsteinPetersen.
This is glorious news for those of us on the side of truth and reality. According to Solomon "he is arguably the world's most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore", which sounds like overstatement until you remember that Wikipedia is "the most popular reference source on the planet" and that Connolley managed to skew almost every one of its entries on Climate Change to his fervently warmist perspective. The Climategate scientists tried and failed to disinvent the Medieval Warm Period. But on Wikipedia, Connolley very nearly succeeded by pouring cold water on its significance and by trying to rename it the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Remember too that it was Connolley who helped up the Warmist propaganda site RealClimate which – despite its reassuring-sounding name – is essentially the black ops wing of Michael Mann's Hockey Team. So his scalp – (bushy, with comedy bear attachment, see sexy photograph above) – represents a considerable coup for the cause of climate realism.
In fact, this has been a good news week generally for us goodies in the great climate wars. Best of all, of course, are the glorious tidings that cricketlovingjetsettingbeardgrowingrailwayengineeringsoftpornwritingtrollimpersonatin g Dr Rajendra Pachauri is to stay on as chairman of the IPCC.

Dr Benny Peiser thinks this will be bad news for the IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report:
"As long as he stays the IPCC will not restore credibility," he said. " Everybody knows that so there is a risk that the next report will not be taken that seriously."

Exactly, Benny. Why else do you think we're all jumping for joy?
#126 | Posted: 15 Oct 2010 17:34
Royal Society: doh!

Of the many pseudoscientific institutions responsible for pushing the pseudoscientific fraud of Man Made Global Warming in recent years, few have been quite so assiduous in promulgating the great lie as our own Royal Society.

"Pseudoscientific" may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Sir Joseph Banks and leading palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century and the first bit of this one, it managed to urinate three centuries' worth of credibility and rigour up against the wall by deciding to abandon all objectivity and act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby.

The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution's history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change.

This 2005 propaganda exercise rode a coach and horses through the Royal Society's traditions of non-partisanship. As Nigel Calder has pointed out, for two centuries the following advertisement was printed in its house journal Philosophical Transactions:

... it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always
adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject,
either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.

But perhaps more importantly it was hopelessly inaccurate, which is why, following a rebellion by some of its members, the Royal Society last month issued a revised guide to Climate Change.

However, this one is apparently wrong too. According to German chemist Dr Klaus Kaiser, the new document grossly exaggerates the amount of time the deadly, devil gas they call CARBON DIOXIDE (mwa ha ha ha!) spends in the atmosphere.

Here's what the Royal Society claims:
"Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations"

But Dr Kaiser says this is rubbish, for reasons he explains at length in Canada Free Press.
It is also obvious then that the statement by the Royal Society that it would take "millennia" for atmospheric CO2 to return to levels at preindustrial times upon a (theoretical) complete and sudden cessation of all manmade CO2 release to the atmosphere cannot be true. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years?

Furthermore, there are several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be between 5 and 10 years. A half life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

He has the support of Swedish maths professor Claes Johnson, who has written scathingly before of what he calls the "Royal Society in Free Fall".

This is not science which has been shown to be correct, but populistic science selling "truths" which serve a certain political agenda.

The Royal Society's next president will be the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. He has got his work cut out, I'd say.
#127 | Posted: 16 Oct 2010 11:34
Rosalind Peterson: Take Action! What You Can Do By October 11, 2010 About The U.S. Navy's New Threat To Northern California And Gulf Of Mexico Marine Life
In !ACTION CENTER!, *Rosalind Peterson Blog on September 19, 2010 at 8:11 am

Redwood Valley




USA TODAY broke this news when they published a news story titled: "Navy Plans Could Affect More Marine Mammals" on August 5, 2010 [1]. According to USA Today news article, backed up by federal documents from the U.S. Navy and NOAA: "...The Navy plans to increase ocean warfare exercises, conduct more sonar tests and expand coastal training... activities that could injure hundreds of thousands of marine mammals or disturb their habitats..."

In a letter to NOAA, dated June 19, 2009, U.S. Senator Feinstein and U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman stated: "...In many regions, the Navy plans to increase the number of its exercises or expand the areas in which they may occur, and virtually every coastal state will be affected. Some exercises may occur in the nation's most biologically sensitive marine habitats, including National Marine Sanctuaries and breeding habitat for the endangered North Atlantic right whale. In all, the Navy anticipates more than 2.3 million takes (significant disruptions in marine mammal foraging, breeding, and other essential behaviors) per year, or 11.7 million takes over the course of a five-year permit..." [2]

The U.S. Navy is expanding their 5-Year Warfare Training in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (NWTRC). The Final U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS), was released on September 10, 2010, and now is available for review, public comment, and protests by going to the U.S. Navy website [9]. The thirty day public comment period ends on October 11, 2010. File your protests and comments today with the U.S. Navy and NOAA. Let your elected officials know that U.S. Congressional hearings are needed now to protect all ocean areas, 11.7 million marine mammals, the fishing and tourism industries, our national marine sanctuaries, migrating whales, manatees, fish, their ocean habitats and food supplies, and public health.

The U.S. Congress, NOAA, and the U.S. Navy are ignoring Chapter 5 of the April 2010, Report of the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE – PRESIDENT'S CANCER PANEL "Exposure to Contaminants and Other Hazards from Military Sources" [8].

Many U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, Environmental Impact Statements, U.S. Congressional Letters, and NOAA Documents regarding these 5-Year Warfare Testing programs are located on the following website:

U.S. NAVY Northwest Training Range Complex Final EIS/OEIS NOW Available-SEE bELOW

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 10, 2010

A copy of the Final EIS/OEIS is available at:

U.S. NAVY NWTRC: Northern California, Oregon, Washington & Idaho

Comments on the Final EIS/OEIS must be postmarked or received by October 12, 2010

Interested parties may submit comments via the project website at or by U.S. mail to:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest

1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203

Silverdale, WA 98315-1101

Attn: Mrs. Kimberly Kler – NWTRC EIS

Send Written Public Comments to:

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Undersecretary
Oceans & Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 5128
Washington, DC 20230

SILVERDALE, Wash. — The U.S. Navy has completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) for the Northwest Training Range Complex. In compliance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, public hearings were held in association with the Draft EIS/OEIS. Public hearings are not required for the Final EIS/OEIS.

Regulations provide for a 30-day wait period after the Final EIS/OEIS is published before the agency may take final action. During that period, in addition to the agency's own internal final review, the public and other agencies can comment on the Final EIS/OEIS prior to the agency's final action on the proposal.

Comments on the Final EIS/OEIS must be postmarked or received by October 12, 2010.

The Final EIS/OEIS has been made available to individuals, agencies and organizations that requested a copy of the final document and/or provided comments during the public review period for the Draft EIS/OEIS. A copy of the Final EIS/OEIS is available at: or can be viewed at one of the following information repositories:

For information on the Navy and other ongoing EIS projects in the Northwest region, please visit Navy Region Northwest at or contact Mrs. Sheila Murray, Environmental Public Affairs Officer, at 360-396-4981 for a CD or hard copy of this Environmental Impact Statement.

See also Take Action! Navy To Sacrifice 2.3 Million Marine Mammals Per Year For 5 Years Of War Games Off Our Mendocino Coast
#128 | Posted: 16 Oct 2010 12:31
The U.S. Navy's New Threat To Northern California And Gulf Of Mexico Marine Life

ER? What`s the point?

After the oil spill, how can this be any worse? I thought all the marine life in the gulf was already pretty much buggered anyway?
#129 | Posted: 18 Oct 2010 17:10 | Edited by: Starseed
Climategate: the Fox connection ction/

She's the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

Can anyone shed any light on what the Science Media Centre actually does?

Their website tells us that their aim is 'to ensure that when a major science story breaks we can quickly offer newsdesks a list of scientists available for comment'.
Wouldn't we just love to see that list !
#130 | Posted: 18 Oct 2010 17:27

Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, has given the go-ahead for eight new nuclear power stations

The Lib Dem minister was previously against the nuclear power because of the difficulties in disposing of radioactive waste.

But as part of the Coalition, he has been forced to back nuclear as part of a wide-ranging plan to keep the lights on in Britain while cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. ite-safety-and-clean-up-concerns.html

Does this mean that they are well aware of the truth about wind power being utterly useless?

Better late than never with the 8 nuclear power stations but why not scrap the 44,000 wind turbines (are they serious?) and build 9 nuclear power stations.

Oh, I forgot. Miriam Gonzαlez Durαntez, wife of Nick Clegg works for Acciona, a major wind turbine company. Nice to see it being kept in the family...
#131 | Posted: 18 Oct 2010 19:16
First big freeze is on the way: Polar winds are blowing south with heavy SNOW forecast by Friday

Crank up your central heating and get out your thermals... because winter is about to bite.

Read more: nds-blowing-south.html#ixzz12jfXHPIa

#132 | Posted: 19 Oct 2010 01:15
Oh dear, & I was hoping to get washing dry as our north east forecast for Friday is cold but dry !!

#133 | Posted: 19 Oct 2010 07:44
Oh dear, & I was hoping to get washing dry as our north east forecast for Friday is cold but dry !!

Don`t worry - If I drive my car round a bit more this week I`m sure I can produce enough carbon to alter the planets climate. Through my crafty Man made global warming I will be able to ensure that the temperature will go up to record levels (if we ignore the medieval warm period), thus ensuring that your washing will hit that line on Friday and will be dry before you have pegged out the last item ;-)
#134 | Posted: 19 Oct 2010 09:17
Its forecast heavy rain here today, according to tv. Bright blue sky, cold, but maybe get it dry today instead.

Blue skies, not a trail in sight, so Newcastle Airport, 5 miles as the crow flies, must be on strike as no contrails either.

#135 | Posted: 19 Oct 2010 16:48
Blue skies, not a trail in sight, so Newcastle Airport, 5 miles as the crow flies, must be on strike as no contrails either.

It`s like that round here too - some days the atmospheric conditions are conducive to produce lots of contrails, other days none. Who knows what the temps are miles up there?
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  7  8  9  10  11  ...  97  98  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.

Forums are powered by miniBB®