Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UK's Guardian "newspaper" gets the reply it has richly earned..
#1
Hi All,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...-tribalism
Climate science: Truth and tribalism
Editorial The Guardian, Saturday 6 February 2010

ie,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/se...ked-emails
Guardian special investigation.

As part of the ongoing "investigation" into climategate the Guardian sent out emails
to certain / known people asking them their opinion, an excerpt is given below.

" I edit the Guardian’s environment website environmentguardian.co.uk.
We are undertaking a unique experiment that I hope you will take part in.
We have published online the full manuscript of Fred Pearce’s investigation
into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia.

We aim to create the definitive account of the controversy.
This is an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth.

We hope to approach that complete account by harnessing the expertise
of people with a special knowledge of, or information about, the emails.
We are inviting protagonists on all sides of the debate to be involved,
as well people with expertise about the events and the science being described
. "

A reply from Rupert, and my apologies to all I do not know who Rupert is, is attached.
It is an absolute must read, the media getting what they deserve, in one of the best I have ever seen so far.
I doubt that it will be the last any / all "newspapers" recieve.
The "news" is out, the tide has turned,
climate science is about to be publicly held to account.

May they rot.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
RW is one of my new heros.

Quote:I shall begin by making one issue clear at the outset. The global warming/climate change scam, for years consistently proselytised by your newspaper with every conceivable form of journalistic chicanery, was in deep trouble well before the release of CRU material to the internet.

Oh, yeah - that's a beginning I can believe in!

[Image: drinks.gif]
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#3
Quote:I edit the Guardian’s environment website environmentguardian.co.uk.
We are undertaking a unique experiment that I hope you will take part in.
We have published online the full manuscript of Fred Pearce’s investigation
into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia.

What evidence do you have that they were stolen?

I have read of presentations that shows a high probability that they were released by an INTERNAL whistleblower,possibly the FOI agent himself.

You like so many rotten newspapers just assume in the negative,to continue to maintain your cultish religion.

Quote:We aim to create the definitive account of the controversy.
This is an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth.

You are a freaking liar!

Only now you want to get at the "truth" of the controversy you tapeworms abetted,after more than 3 months of exposure of the e-mail release and the many dissertations thereof by many bloggers and a few sane newspapers.That blew open the fraudulent cabal of the inner AGW team,you jerks keeps giving the benefit of doubt EVEN TO THIS DAY!

It is more likely an attempt to contain the damage,as part of your new disinformation campaign,to regain control of the AGW propaganda you dirtbags want to continue pushing.

You are scum!

Quote:We hope to approach that complete account by harnessing the expertise of people with a special knowledge of, or information about, the emails.We are inviting protagonists on all sides of the debate to be involved,as well people with expertise about the events and the science being described. "

You are too late since a number of bloggers with more integrity in their thumbnail than you climate change shills have in your entire news department,have already examined many angles of the released e-mails and posted their thoughts openly and honestly on the internet for everyone to see.

It is not pretty.

Why do you think Dr. Jones stepped down almost immediately,and even tried to kill himself over his criminal actions?

He KNOWS that he is finished as Director,because as he himself made clear that he knows the e-mails are legitimate.But amazingly you dipshits still have doubts and want to "investigate" them,because you are a bunch of drooling AGW sap suckers.

You are creeps of the lowest order.I despised you for you did in the past, and I despise you for what you are doing now.

After being a tool for the AGW propaganda for many years,you really think that your little "investigation" is going to be fair and credible to those who have suffered from your greasy editorials in deep orgasims of some messianic comments from your group of creeps such as Al $$$ Gore,James (data changer) Hansen,P.J. (I lost my data,honest!) Jones,Micheal (Hockey Stick maker) Mann and other low life life forms,you drool over.

That you really think that you haters of science really care about what WE "deniers" think of your insane birdcage quality tomes that seems more at home in an insane asylum,than in the modern world.We have long known that you harbor a real life moonbat,with his stupidly written gibberish,that gets easily swallowed by many ignorant lemmings,who have NO idea what the hell is going on.I have met some of them and my my they are unbelievably stupid.

The real truth is that this is another Guardian whitewash in progress for the purpose of limiting the damage to their deluded AGW supporting friends.For the purpose of continuing to publish hysterical woe is me bullshit in your crappy rag.

You are scum of the Earth for continuing the AGW pretensions in the face of overwhelming evidence that your fallen devils have been exposed for what they really are,pseudo scientists in wolves clothing.

Angry
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Derek:

You say:

"A reply from Rupert, and my apologies to all I do not know who Rupert is, is attached."

Both from his initials and the style of his writing I strongly suspect it is Rupert Wyndham who has been mounting a campaign against BBC bias on AGW for years. He is a nice chap who lives near me.

Richard
Reply
#5
RSC -

If it is your neighbor Rupert Windham and you happen to talk to him, please give him a "well done" from me.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#6
Thank you for that Richard, I was stumped for who it was.
I echo JohnWho as well, and think many here do as well.
Well done Rupert, brilliant. I think you may have started an avalanche.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
Quite a stinging reply from Mr. "RW". More than they bargained for perhaps?

That's a keeper.
Reply
#8
HarpoSpoke:

You say:

(02-16-2010, 08:49 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: Quite a stinging reply from Mr. "RW". More than they bargained for perhaps?

That's a keeper.


Not really.
It is quite moderate by the standards of Rupert Wyndham (Please note the corrct spelling of his family name).
This one to Archbishop Vincent Nichols is typical and was sent from the antipodes where he is on holiday (I think you will gather that Rupert is not a Christian adherent).

Richard

Quote:(Address and phone numbers deleted)

Archbishop Vincent Nichols
Westminster Cathedral
Ashley Place
London SW1P 1QJ

10 January 2010.

Dear Archbishop Nichols

As the New Year breaks, from a vantage point South of the Equator, I look upon temperature maps North of the Tropic of Cancer, and behold a seemingly unbroken ocean of blue. From the Rockies to the Pamirs and on to Fuji-san, the hemisphere is in the grip of ice and snow. Indeed, as I write, in China so abundant is the precipitation that it is seen perhaps as the solution to prevailing widespread drought. Moreover, since your archbishopric is likewise in the thick of it, you will be dismayed to learn that any likelihood of significant respite throughout January and February is slender. And do not be tempted to draw comfort from anything predicted by the Met Office; certainly, my own sources are far more reliable and can be demonstrated to be so. Besides, its luminaries attribute freezing to global warming! Just crooks or stark barking mad?

Of course, contrasts between reality and expectations informed by pronouncements from the Hadley Centre are no longer startling, simply risibly predictable. To those who come to “Climate Change” with open eyes (not to mention open minds), it merely constitutes a trend - as unmistakeable as tracks in the snow, the cupidity and mendacity of politicians, the poltroonery of establishment scientists and their journalistic lapdogs or the catastrophist phantasmagoria of anthropogenic global warming pseudo-environmentalists. Furthermore, the perception is strengthened to the point of absolute confirmation by the predictions of dissenting mavericks. These renegades, unashamed in the face of understandable vexation and vilification from practitioners of orthodox purity, obdurately persist in pursuing rigorous, replicable science. This, naturally, is an outrage, which one would not hesitate to condemn save for one small but inconvenient circumstance. They make a furtive and disreputable virtue of repeatedly being right!

Then - to use the inevitable cliché - we have Climategate. And, dare it be said, for those such as yourself, in the vanguard of so called “faith communities”, who arrogate to themselves the role of moral leadership, this gives rise to serious questions, does it not? Indeed, in many ways, "Climategate" is less about the "science" - which anyway is garbage - than it is about the integrity of the scientific process, an issue of immensely greater ethical significance for all who value truth as well as democratic accountability. AGW science has been exposed as a fraud, by far the gravest in the entire history of science. The AGW hypothesis itself is no better than a glib and distorted misrepresentation of a 100 year old speculation relating to the so-called Greenhouse Effect allied to invented evidence concocted within the guts of a computer by individuals with a predetermined agenda coupled with huge personal vested interests - financial and otherwise. We now know unequivocally that not just the notorious Mann, Bradley Hughes hockey stick, beloved of AGW propagandists, is a worthless contrivance, but even the very temperature record itself is largely a fiction - maybe entirely.

Although slowly playing out, the legalities of this are not immediately relevant. What is clear is that, for decades, a small group of so-called climate scientists in the UK and America (known amongst themselves as “The Team”) have been pushing the AGW hypothesis and, in so doing, have:

• Concocted/fiddled the data. Forensic analysis of actual computer code undertaken within the last few weeks reveals this beyond possibility of credible contradiction;
• Suppressed or ignored any that were “inconvenient”;
• Injected fictitious data to fill inconvenient lacunae;
• Staunchly refused to share data/computational algorithms with the wider scientific community, thereby denying the most basic requirement of scientific method, namely that there should be verification and replication;
• In some cases, physically vandalised contra-indicative evidence;
• Often in luridly offensive terms, denigrated and threatened anyone, but especially other scientists, who had the temerity to exhibit a questioning approach;
• Taken over and corrupted scientific journals, hitherto regarded as objective organs for scientific speculation;
• Sought time and again to emphasise the pre-eminence of “peer review” in the knowledge that, in itself, this is just another self-serving myth which, in relation to so-called climate science, implies not rigorous academic assaying but rather nothing more substantive than mutual approbation by close colleagues/collaborators;
• In every possible way, obstructed Freedom of Information Act requests for data;
• Insinuated themselves into and corrupted academia and national institutes of scientific excellence.

Given that these represent but a sampling of the gross scientific corruption and malfeasance that has been revealed by the publication of e-mails and some data (by no means all but enough to confirm fraud on a massive scale) from HadCRU (UK Met Office Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia) and from NASA GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), numerous questions arise. For example:

• How could such a miasma of lies, self-interest and intellectual intolerance ever have gained traction at all, let alone come to dominate the political landscape for close to a couple of decades?
• What does it tell one about the integrity of the scientific community at large?
• What does it say about the financing of scientific research - especially out of public funds?
• What does it say about the relationship between government and certain selected industries?
• What does it say about the independence of the media?
• What does it say about the personal integrity, never mind the intellectual bankruptcy, of politicians/religious leaders - with notable and honourable exceptions in the persons of Cardinal George Pell of Sydney and, less forthrightly, Benedict XVI?
• For the religiously inclined, in particular, are the self-evident misanthropy and roiling hatreds exhibited by AGW propagandists not a cause for profound disquiet?
• What does it say about politicians and the democratic process?
• What does it reveal as to the rising influence of pseudo-environmentalist NGOs and the threat they pose to the democratic process - in particular, by the deployment of rent-a-mob tactics?
• Who is financing these social parasites, misfits and fascist anarchists?
• What does it imply for the future education of the next generation, if it is allowed to prevail? Already school science text books and so called science examination papers are carrying human induced global warming as an article of faith. Worthless degrees and PhDs are being churned out with this vomit as a core premise!

AGW is a hypothesis that is intellectually so indefensible, so tawdry, so dishonest, so self-serving, so mean spirited, so corrupting that, quite simply, it cannot be espoused with honourable motivation; it has to be the product either of nefarious purpose, of unassailable gullibility or of mental aberration. Any person who describes him/herself as a scientist, who promotes or condones AGW, is no better than an alarmist, a mountebank, a bare faced liar. By virtue of that fact alone he/she is a scoundrel.

That, of course, leaves you in a quandary, does it not? Either you repudiate this ethical obscenity and, in a spirit of Christian repentance, exercise moral authority or you continue to promote it and abrogate moral authority. Although religious leaders often seem to find the concept seductive, what you cannot do is both to wolf your bun and hang on to your penny. Your predecessor thought he could. He was wrong. He will be remembered, let me suggest, not for his moral leadership but rather for surreptitiously shuffling errant clergy from parish to parish within his then diocese thereby, in effect, pimping for pederastic priests.

Because of its multifarious and potentially catastrophic ramifications - for the dispossessed especially, obnoxious as were the actions of the laboriously monikered Cormac Murphy O’Connor, when set against the monstrous fraud that is AGW science, as a pre-eminent ethical issue, the “maladroitness” (shall we call it?), of him and his peers across the English speaking world it would seem, pails into relative insignificance.

On 3 November I wrote to you in response to your call for a moral crusade on the subject of “climate change”. At the suggestion of Prof. David Bellamy, I sent a copy to The Tablet. From you nothing has been heard - well except second hand, 350 ppmv (Lordy, lordy!). That is no surprise. One gets very used to AGW protagonists seeking the shadows. From The Tablet came what read like rather a startled holding letter, since when nothing. As a New Year resolution, perhaps it could be suggested that you try to be braver, and preach not simply to the converted but debate also with those who might bring to bear a more detached and questioning approach.

I do not live in hope, however.

Yours sincerely


R.C.E. Wyndham

PS The seer of Lambeth Palace, of course, has a real problem. Two thirds of his clergy’s pension fund is tied up in investments founded in this claptrap. Compared to that, down the road what matters a few female or fairy prelates?

Cc:
Benedict XVI
Archbishop of Canterbury
Archbishop of York
Bishop of London
Abbot, Downside Abbey
Prime Minister
Ed Miliband MP
As the spirit moves
Reply
#9
Richard, is Rupert aware of the Dunscombe and Naper links I have mentioned in "smelling the coffee." ?

I imagine any "discussions" over the garden hedge with Rupert are rather "interesting"..
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#10
Wow!

Thank you for posting it.

I like his in your face style on a subject matter that deserves such derisive prose.

Smile
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A new reply to Jack Williams Sunsettommy 1 4,267 01-08-2013, 04:51 PM
Last Post: dev
  A reply to Jack Williams at Facebook Sunsettommy 2 5,031 12-19-2012, 07:42 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Forum "News:" ? JohnWho 13 13,216 07-11-2009, 03:30 PM
Last Post: Derek
  The "Wayback Machine" JohnWho 1 13,889 07-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)