Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • Home
  • Newsletter
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • News releases
    • February 8, 2010
  • Climate Realists
    • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
    • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
    • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
  • Carbon Sense
    • Newsletter Feb 15, 2010
  • Files
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About
    • New address
  • Contact

Alarmist plagiarises comments from sceptic

Richard | October 27, 2009 | 9:50 am

A couple of days ago, a headline appeared over at Climate Depot, illustrated with a bunch of hypodermic syringes: Don’t call them Climate Deniers, Label them ‘Pushers’ of a Drug called ‘Doubt’. I could see where that was going, so I shot over there to have a look.

He said

It is Carbon Dave’s Diary, which I’ve not seen before. Dave Hampton’s an engineer and social change advocate (whatever that means). The article that Marc Morano had picked up on was a polemic against climate realists who doubt humanity’s responsibility for global warming. Oddly, there’s a spelling error in the very headline, which is also in the html link. Morano was observant enough to correct it when he posted it, but at this moment it’s still there on Carbon Dave’s site.

His article is funny enough, creatively picturing doubt as a drug to be fed to the gullible. But you can read it for yourself; I have an odd complaint to make about Carbon Dave’s honesty. You see, he’s used my comments as though he wrote them himself — he’s plagiarised them. Maybe I ought to be flattered, but it’s annoyed me.

I said

My first response to his article is posted up at Carbon Dave’s site and is, I think, unremarkable. I mention honest enquiry in an attempt to draw him into discussing some climatic facts, which had been notably absent in his post.

He said

Carbon Dave responded, saying my points had been debunked “a million times over”. It’s very frustrating when people claim debunking has occurred without actually performing any debunking themselves, so I penned a second comment.

He liked what I said

But you won’t see that one on Carbon Dave’s blog, even though he claims to have posted “all comments”. After checking overnight, I thought he’d binned it. Then I noticed that his latest post mentioned “doubt pushers” and Climate Depot so I read it. Halfway down, he says: “Thanks for the laughs. I’ve posted all comments up because I know you can’t challenge the truth I expose.” I thought that’s not right, he hasn’t posted my comment.

He said what I said

Suddenly my jaw dropped when I read my own comment — right there in Carbon Dave’s own post. He’s used my comment as though he wrote it himself! The nerve of the man! He has no self-respect and he doesn’t tell the truth.

First, here’s what Carbon Dave says:

I represent many ordinary people who ask these questions. You’re speaking to an entire movement when you reply to me here. That’s not to make you all bashful, heaven forbid! Neither is it to threaten you, although some of you would be more comfortable with the situation if i did. But it’s just to show how important it is that your comment is the very best it can be, for it will be assessed by all kinds of honest enquirers here.

You’ll see he’s made changes, but it’s basically my writing. Then:

It’s funny, although a bit sad.

You can compare that with my entire comment, shown next, which he didn’t publish, just stole from. He should be thanking me for telling him about Climate Depot, as he obviously didn’t know about it.

Dave, you say to me “All of your ‘arguments’ have been thoroughly debunked, a million times over.”

I’m waiting; debunk away.

It will be especially good to see how you paper over the satellite temperature record; it shows no undue warming since 1979, a kind of plateau since 2001 and even a little cooling since 2005. Surely you cannot claim dangerous warming from that?

Please don’t imagine you’re “indulging” me by responding to my criticism. I don’t care what you think. But I represent many ordinary people who ask these questions and make the very assertions I have made. You’re speaking to quite an audience when you reply to me. That’s not to make you bashful, heaven forbid! No, it’s just to show how important it is that your reply is the very best it can be, for it will be assessed by all kinds of honest enquirers.

By the way, your increased traffic was because this silly piece about “a drug called doubt” was held up for ridicule at Climate Depot. I saw it there and came here, with everyone else, to laugh at such thinking. It’s funny, although a bit sad.

If you want to try some reasoning, debunk away.

Cheers.

Distasteful—a new low, even—and the topic goes untended

Carbon Dave makes empty accusations, without evidence, that I am dishonest. In return, I confront him with this actual evidence of his own dishonesty. How odd that he treats his own credibility with the same contempt he brings to those who disagree with him.

I hope this engineer and “social change” advocate, who brazenly plagiarises comments he likes, takes care to design a society with more advanced ethical standards than he holds himself to.

Of course, I’m still waiting for some proper, reasoned, scientific debunking of the actual topic (the dangerous climate, remember?). But I’m not holding my breath. There’s not been an ounce of data from him so far. Strange — is he really an engineer?

Categories
Alarmists, Global warming, Plagiarism, Wacky ideas, What is the evidence
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« SckSckSck campaign Pencil in one carbon footprint »

3 Responses to “Alarmist plagiarises comments from sceptic”

  1. Bob D says:
    October 27, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Wow, straight plagiarism, no shame at all. Copy-and-paste because he couldn’t think of those words himself. Did he really think you wouldn’t notice?

    He also claims to have posted all the comments. Yours was obviously censored then stolen, mine just disappeared into the ether when I challenged ‘Steve’ on his totally out-dated claims.

    It’s an interesting observation that the sceptics are always willing to publish adverse points of view and debate them, even though it often means taking unwarranted personal attacks in the process. Look at WattsUpWithThat, or ClimateAudit or any of these.

    On the other hand the alarmists are constantly deleting or editing ‘difficult’ posts they can’t answer (RealClimate and Open Mind are the most famous for this, but ClimateProgress is similar), and they do it without even a glimmer of conscience.

    It forces the conclusion that the sceptics want to try to be right, while the alarmists only want to appear to be right.

    Reply
  2. Richard says:
    October 27, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Nicely said, Bob, and I entirely agree. When I discovered the plagiarism I left a terse comment with Carbon Dave which I expect has already been tipped into the bit bucket. It says simply:

    Dave: Don’t plagiarise my comments. Don’t claim you’ve posted all comments when you haven’t. I’m still waiting for you to “debunk” the assertion that the climate is not warming dangerously.

    Please, kids, don’t try this at home. I mean, don’t hold your breath on a reply.

    Reply
  3. Bob D says:
    October 27, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Here’s what I posted in response to ‘Steve’:

    Steve:
    You’re a little out of date, mate. All your sources are old, and somewhat amusing, considering the wealth of knowledge there is out there now showing just how weak these arguments are. I had a good laugh when you even provided a link to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph! If you’re going to join the AGW debate you’re going to have to come up to speed.

    The fact is that Basic Physics, as you put it (your 1st link goes nowhere), provides for a theoretical 1.0ºC warming due to a doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv, according to the IPCC (TAR) [alpha=5.35]. Any other theoretical warming is due to feedbacks. These feedbacks were until recently largely uncertain, according to NASA.

    Positive feedbacks raise the warming level, negative feedbacks lower it. Up to now the models have always assumed positive feedbacks from clouds. In fact we now know from ERBE observations that these feedbacks are negative. See Lindzen and Choi, GRL, 2009. This means the total warming is in fact less than 1ºC, nearer 0.5ºC in the tropics, slightly more at higher latitudes. In other words the sensitivity is much lower than expected by the IPCC. This is consistent with the observed climate response we’re seeing. It also explains why all the models are so wrong, and why none of them predicted the current cooling.

    And on warming: we know the planet warmed from 1976 to 1998, when it reached its recent record high. That was not surprising – the PDO was in its positive phase. Now it’s gone negative, and we’re cooling. Experts are predicting another 20-30 years of cooling, in spite of the increasing CO2. This of course confirms that CO2 doesn’t drive climate to any appreciable degree, and any effect it may have is easily swamped by natural variations.

    Regarding some of your other points – the Arctic sea ice extent is recovering at almost half a million square kilometers a year, the Antarctic ice is increasing, hurricane activity is at a 30-year low, droughts have been decreasing, as have extreme floods. Sea level rise slowed recently by a whopping 60%, mainly due to the oceans cooling. Look it up.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

 

Thanks to WordShine for hosting our site. Professional editing services and academic editing — WordShine for polished writing.

Hot off the press

  • Climate panel must be purged
  • Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • NZ Herald ratifies outrageous rant
  • AGW a cloak for dishonest science
  • Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’
  • To do good, the free will be bound
  • Auckland warming is deception
  • Rudman offensive but NZ temp record dubious
  • A tale of two hemispheres
  • A swelling debate — Chris has questions

Latest comments

  • Andy on Climate panel must be purged
  • Quentin F on Climate panel must be purged
  • Andy on Climate panel must be purged
  • Andy on Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • klem on Climate panel must be purged
  • Richard Treadgold on Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’
  • Clarence on Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • Richard Treadgold on Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • Richard Treadgold on Auckland warming is deception
  • Quentin F on Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’
  • Richard Treadgold on NZ Herald ratifies outrageous rant
  • Quentin F on Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • Mike Jowsey on Lincoln – a comedy of errors
  • (not so) Silent on Auckland warming is deception
  • Richard Treadgold on Auckland warming is deception

Tags

ACT Activists Administration AGW Air temperature Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading Climate Conversation Group Climate Depot Climate profiteering Climate research Climate Science Climate Skeptic Clouds CRU leak Data quality Disproving AGW Energy supply ETS Glaciers Global warming Hot Topic Injustice IPCC Joanne Nova New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Peter Gluckman Peter Spencer Rajendra Pachauri Rodney Hide Royal Society Roy Spencer Sceptics Science bias Science funding UK Watts Up With That Wind turbines

Categories

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
What's your opinion?
Stop the ETS — is it madness? Should we stop the ETS?
sckscksck — is the earth warming dangerously from human activities?
Your view of CO2 — does CO2 dominate the climate?
Exercise your word skills — what's the best collective noun for icebergs?

Big Button email campaign

email button

Stop the ETS

Press this Little Button. Read the article. Press the Big Button to set up an email to the Prime Minister. Change the email address to send the message to your local MP or Nick Smith or anyone. Change the message if you like! Add your name! Click Send!
Click to get your own widget

Interested in oil prices?

Scroll down to see a nifty little widget that graphs oil prices back five years.

Climate change links

  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Global warming at a glance
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Watts Up With That

 

October 2009
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog stats

page loads since August 2008

Previous posts

Oil price trends

 
 

"Your word is no longer enough, sir; you must give evidence. Without it, why should we bear you? If it is the least you give, it is all you have."

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox