We see that with the UN.

The UN unable to distribute its aid. Still stuck in its warehouses. While Smaller Aid providers have efficiently distributed their aid.

The complaints from the E. Timorese Govt a few years ago was further proof of the Big RORT the UN Aid program is. 90% of UN aid monies to E. Timor going back to the UN in ADMIN Fees!

…. kicking the can down the road.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9352844/Bank-of-Englands-money-printing-is-putting-UK-economy-at-risk.html

A good observation I think.
Douglas

Douglas

I think a good chunk of the book is a hatchet job against Fred Singer
My understanding is that Oreskes et al claim that Singer was in the pay of Big Tobacco
I have no idea whether this is true.

However, I have also heard that he looked into the issue of second hand smoking, and found no statistical evidence that supported the a priori answer the sponsors wanted.

I am more likely to believe the latter.

Douglas

But I do not see Thomas in comments demanding that “the findings of the book” (as Gareth puts it) be peer-reviewed as was his criteria for Andy’s quote from the synopsis of Nina Pierpont’s book ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome A Report on a Natural Experiment’.

Gareth reviewing ‘Merchants of Doudt’ in the above-linked post:-

The shift in the community of global warming deniers from merely attacking mainstream climate scientists to alleging their involvement in criminal activity Oreskes and Conway describe as “an unsurprising but alarming development” in the continuing campaign to discredit the science.

So THAT’S what all us “deniers” have been up to – good to know.

And quoting a Hollywood celeb erases any doubt on the issue apparently:-

It has appeared in recent years that the science of global warming was also on the way to prevailing. They note, for example, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying in 2005: “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate.”

How can we possibly continue our “alarming” “campaign to discredit the science” when Arne declares “the debate is over”?

It’s unthinkable (and Gareth obviously doesn’t) to doubt the wisdom of such a celebrated persona as Arnold Schwarzenegger whose scientific understanding of the effects of anabolic steroids in combination with intense resistance training is legendary, albeit far removed from the physics of climate science but hey – Arne said it – that clinches it.

Climate Change Response (Low
Carbon Economic Development)
Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill (Gareth Hughes – NZ Green Party)

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6CA1C6F5-6510-4733-9D87-E5C470589C2F/225062/ClimateChangeResponseLowCarbonEconomicDevelopmentA.pdf

‘Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods’

* Gerald A. Meehl,
* Julie M. Arblaster,
* John T. Fasullo,
* Aixue Hu
* & Kevin E. Trenberth, 2011

They’re very big on “model-based evidence” and the paper seems to be read as fact. Never mind that it’s highly questionable and questioning of it (and what’s missing from it) will get you tagged “denier” very quickly.

I doubt too that raising the topic of NIWA’s NZT7 step changes under dispute by NZCSET would attract any knowledgeable comment (they wouldn’t have a clue) or BOM’s radical step methodology in the AU equivalent ACORN – SAT (even OZ sceptics are struggling with that) where BOM have adjusted seasonal change OUT of location series.

Ironic that in the latter case, using the “denier” tag would be baseless on their part due to their complete ignorance of the topic but they would as in the former take ACORN -SAT at face value and disbar questioning of it (that’s “sowing seeds of doubt” apparently)