Alarmists lack of integrity
"TRUST us", the alarmists say. Yet their lack of integrity is one of the most obvious things that weakens their case. If it were rock solid then they wouldn't need this continuous supply of tricks.
"TRUST this science guy" they chant. What that guy, who failed to speak up about these obvious tricks.
- They've kicked the scientific method is the dustbin, so harming the TRUST we had in science... It's so sickening.
- This builds on previous pages on Alarmist Dirty PR, and Brainwashing
Anyone noticed a pattern ?
We know that Climate Alarmism has always been more about dirty PR rather than proper science,
1. Smear- Mann and Ward routinely smear challengers of their dogma.
2. Ban Challenging - Alarmists generally exclude challenging by refusing to debate skeptics and getting the skeptic viewpoints banned from the media.
But recently tactics has been stretched even further
3. Ban Challenging Legally - Mann came up with the big libel court stick - "challenge me And I will bankrupt you. Cos I can afford it and you can't"
4. Ban Challenging using Defamation : Bob Ward tried to close down Laframboise by defaming her parliamentry evidence. Her tactic was to 'defame' him back strongly so he'd have to sue her. He has the money , but can't sue, as his claims won't stand up in court"
IRONY : Note how Ward pops up on BBC World Service to say Goliath scientist Mann can't do his job, due to David defamation while at the same time he a Goliath is defaming a David journalist in an attempt to disrupt her work.
5. Then Lew RF Paper, They don't want to admit it's many flaws, so the threat of libel action from skeptics is used as an excuse for it's retraction
6.Tuesday : Bob Ward pops up on BBC WS to call for greater controls against deniers
7. Wednesday : Ward pops up in Press Gazette in an article about the one sided Climate Panel quoted
as " less than one per cent of papers disagree with the idea that humans are the main driver of climate change." That might not be true, but it's also a rhetorical trick as most papers would not be concerned with that matter either way, so it's not like 99% believe the contrary.
check ward scientist claim
apply The PROJECTION RULE to translate alarmist claims
- "Nasty Skeptics are using threats of libel action to block the work of Climate Scientists, but we have no real evidence
actually means :"We Nasty Alarmists are using threats of libel action to block the work of Skeptics, and there is strong evidence"
- "Nasty Skeptics are defaming Climate Scientists in an attempt to destroy their reputation, "
actually means :"We Nasty Alarmists are defaming Skeptics in an attempt to destroy their reputation" and there is strong evidence"
ON FALSE BALANCE
- We need to stop false balance. Nasty Skeptics need to be banned from the media, cos they use challenging to spread skeptic disinformation, even though they are hardly ever ever aired"
actually means :
- "We need to keep false balance all the time. We Nasty Alarmists are trying to get Skeptics banned from the media, so we can spread alarmist disinformation UNCHALLENGED, and we alarmists are aired everyday"
Here's another Wardism in Press Gazette
"in opinion surveys more than 40 per cent of the |
British public think that scientists are divided on climate change"
= "I am trying to make you think scientists support me but there has been no proper survey, so that 40% of public is probably right"
As non-climate scientists Bob Ward and Steve Jones continue their campaign to ban skeptics from challenging Alarmist dogma I thought I'd check what the UK based Index On Censorship say about censoring skeptics ..strangely mostly they switchoff comments on climate articles.
-I think the American equivalent the ACLU has aso refused to comment on censoring of skeptics.. fbut intervened in he past to support Mann's right to keep emails secret from FOIA
Appeal to Index on Censorship ? No Their mag is used to smear sceptics by Greenpeace
Article in Index on Censorship magazine by
John Sauven the Exeuctive Director of Greenpeace July 2013
"Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'Tobacco Wars'
Fossil fuel companies have been funding smear campaigns that raise doubts about climate change, writes John Sauven in the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine"
-bet this article has no facts in it, cos the abstract doesn't
- Be great if someone has a way to check
Be Ironic if that Index on Censorship seems to be censoring by smearing with no evidence
John Sauven the Exeuctive Director of Greenpeace
- A positive future : The world will come to understand reason and critical thinking and there will be no more scares with mankind blaming itself for everything, Instead when problems come up we won't panic, we will deal with them like adults. The green movement will fall apart as people realise it's not possible to be dogmatic and proscribe whole fields as magic bad, or magic good.
- The global warming scare should be slowing. A few years ago we were told we have to act now, cos the changes are accelerating. By the same logic since evidence shows that changes are not accelerating, the time available for careful analysis is more. Good decisions never came from rushing into things, that when te screwups happen.
- Skepticsm is a positive mindset, whereas headless chicken alarmism is a negative one.
BobWard getting airtimme to shout scientists are being shut down by defamation so skeptics should be banned
Upshot is Ward wants to be able to spread lies himself, but ban others from challenging anything.
- The biggest bullies* in the playground are Playing the Victim.. & shouting "teacher it's not fair"
*(Bob Ward, Michael Mann)
Ironic ! How many documented cases can we show when they have terrorised other individuals ?
- It's only 3 weeks since Ward duffed up Laframboise defaming her about her evidence under oath to the UK parliament climate committee, knowing she would not have the resources to sue him. - But She touche-ed him; as her "Lying snake Bob" video clearly challenges him to use his vast resources to come into the libel court. He hasn't cos we know his playground tales won't stand up in court.
- And Mann .. who spends much of his life screaming abuse over social media at others who don't toe his line.. Cries "I was forced into court to defend my reputation" Que ? Seems to most of the world it's just a cynical attempt to shut down criticism by threatening to sue people who dare to challeng him, rather than a genuine attempt to recoup lost earnings , due to small man Steyn's effect on his earning power.
- Mann or Laframboise get called fraud/liar
- or sue
Mann hadn't lost money, she will have
- if you have the resources then you will win.
You do have a right to say opinion on public figure even if wrong. But destroying careeris another matter eg. calling someone paedophile.causing people to act
Talk about PROJECTION ! the truth is not even 180° different it is 100miles to the right as that statement is 1 mile to the left.
For years skeptic scientists have hounded banned, harassed, namecalled, careers destroyed etc. How many threats and legal cases ..even whole books like the Merchants of doubt Doubt given vast time by ABC etc.
It was the very BBC Feedback prog that devoted lots of time to activists to defame BoB Carter..I didn't notice Bob Ward jumping up to protest