http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=72065

He doesn’t exactly hold back either.

Schellnhuber is a leading member of the Potsdam institute, one of the temples of the warmist religion and he expressed his views to “more than 100 scientists” who are meeting at Oxford University “to discuss the dangers of climate change causing droughts, floods and mass extinctions around the world.”

His little conference is but one part of the hype as the warmists desperately try to fan the flames of public concern as a prelude to the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year.

But if Schellnhuber was at all honest – and tell me one warmist that is – he would also have to admit that there were some Americans who were very “climate literate”, and had just shot his fox, totally destroying the iconic “hockey stick”.

The trouble is that not only are the warmists fundamentally dishonest, so are the media. We are looking here at what I would have no difficulty in describing as scientific fraud on an industrial scale – striking at the very heart of the claims on global warming. Yet, apart from Booker, you will struggle to find any criticism of this fraud in the MSM – and nothing at all about the latest developments.

So my question for Ken and the fans of this report is, why did they chose a serial alarmist to produce the report and not the more measured tones of the IPCC?

But, these irritating people are part of our society.

However, I find these pseudo-intellectual and sanctimonious scribblings irritating in the least.

Of the so-called “experts” in the list cited by Ken, I have experience that matches at least one. My work life is one of constant tyre-kicking and criticism of my work. I am under a semi-permanent, daily, performance review. It keeps me on my toes and my work of good quality

My limited experience of academia is that no one checks your work. You can get away with blue murder, and as long at it is “on message” everyone gives you a pat on the back.

You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist of someone “of extreme conservative views”, as Ken describes me, to appreciate this.

Incidentally, I wonder what a person of “of extreme conservative views” looks like? Someone who bakes lots of cupcakes, or attends school parent-teacher interviews perhaps?

Cheers

Take this comment on Ken’s syndicated post of the above:

Stuart Mathieson 3 days ago

I think the capacity to trust is an important ingredient here. As Bruce Schneier says, trust is infra-digital. A child frequently betrayed will develop a fortress mentality. All of the psychologists agree I think that the development of the Ego and who gets included in its moral universe works this way. Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, Blasi. Rather than revise your core beliefs and the associated cognitive dissonance the most preposterous conspiracy theories will be entertained. Prof. Charles Higham the archeologist at Otago calls them “pyramidamaniacs”. Nutters who rearrange the evidence with dynamite to save the theory.

http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2012/11/22/climate-change-deniers-dont-understand-expertise/#comments

[Andy, that's verboten. Cheers. - RT]