Maurice “Pants On Fire” Newman flees reality for The Australian

Climate Spectator has an interesting article on how the recent Australian opinion piece by Maurice Newman came to be published.

Newman was calling because he felt he’d been mischaracterised in an article in Climate Spectator. Newman said he was genuinely “agnostic” about whether global warming was occurring back in 2010 when, as chair of the ABC, he accused the media of group-think on climate change.

This is blatantly untrue, but thankfully Newman has listed exactly what he believed since 2010 had so comprehensively shattered the AGW theory:

For Newman the clincher is that he looks at the temperature data of the last 15 years and sees temperature rise has stalled, while CO2 levels have continued to rise. Surely this means global warming is bunk.

Wrong.

Those with long memories will remember 2010 as the year of “Phil Jones declares no statistically significant warming in fifteen years!”. That’s right – deniers were running the exact same argument in 2010 that they are running now, but with a different cherrypicked start date – 1994 instead of 1997.

Of course, deniers have now dropped “no statistically significant warming since 1994″ because that warming is now, with the addition of a proper time period to differentiate climate signal from noise, statistically significant.

1994GISSFunny that.

Newman is deliberately choosing a short time period because he knows it is going to give him the result he wants. This isn’t very honest. Actually, this is acutely dishonest. Newman is pretending that the short term temperature record is the climate signal and ignoring all other empirical lines of evidence. This is disgraceful.

Moreover, Newman is basing his entire denigration of the science as a “scam” on this fictitious argument that has been proven wrong again and again. These are not the beliefs of a man with an open mind who deals only in the evidence. These are the beliefs of a zealot whose research stops when he has an answer that agrees with his ideology.

Newman continues:

In addition he notes flaws in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. He cites the statement that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035; and dire claims about Brazil’s rainforests that were sourced from a publication produced by the green group WWF.

Firstly, the glacier error was found by an actual scientist, and not a sceptic. Secondly, Newman provides no evidence that the “claims about Brazil’s rainforests” are wrong, just that they are from the WWF and therefore must be suspect, although he refuses to tell us why, which clashes with his laughable claim that he deals only in evidence. Apparently he deals in evidence, as long as he likes the source. Thirdly, both of these pieces of information were known before Newman made his speech to the ABC, which puts lie to his claim that the science was somehow shattered after 2010.

Incredibly, Climate Spectator reveals that Newman is a yellow-bellied coward who is happy to dish it but not take it:

After seeing the incredible accusations contained within his article, and knowing that there were counter arguments backed by credible evidence, I felt it needed to be published with a counter perspective.

Unfortunately Newman was unwilling to accept this, and so his article ran in The Australian instead.

This is, frankly, shocking. When faced with a mere opinion piece that would counter his own, Newman chooses to run to the bosom of The Australian where he knows his conspiracy theories and junk science will be accepted with open arms. Again, this isn’t the behaviour of a man who believes the only way to come to a conclusion is to see if “the underlying data is true”. This is a man with his mind made up, too frightened to face criticism, who labels all his critics “abusive” and runs away from dissenting opinion.

Sadly, the Climate Spectator still fails to touch on Newman’s links to shadowy fringe anti-science groups, NIMBY activism or threats to sue farmers who install windfarms next to his own property (the “underlying evidence” that wind farms affect anybodies health, as he claims, being entirely non-existent)

The real questions here are – why is Maurice Newman scared of criticism? And why does he continue to lie?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Maurice Newman is a concern trolling liar

Ex-ABC board head Maurice Newman, who himself is linked to shady anti-wind astroturf group and failed rally organisers “Stop These Things”, has unironically accused global warming of being an insidious conspiracy theory driven by scary “vested interests” in a bizarre opinion piece in failing newspaper The Australian this morning.

In amongst the usual boring anti-science memes (“no warming since 1998!”, “cooling since 2002!”) and promotion of stolen emails comes this gem:

That so many scientists have found it necessary to mislead us on anthropogenic global warming is an admission of political intent and the absence of a strong scientific case.

Maurice Newman would know about misleading people, having previously demanded in his position of ABC chairman that ABC journalists show more “balance” in their reportage.

I am an agnostic and I have always been an agnostic and I will remain and agnostic until I’ve found compelling evidence on one side or the other that will move me.

This statement was, and remains, a blatant lie, unless Newman wishes to enlighten us about which “compelling evidence” has rocked his world since 2010. Maurice Newman was an ideologically-bound denier hiding his political allegiances under the banner of “concern”. He pleaded that he was just concerned about good journalism, that’s all.

By his own admission Newman’s deliberate misleading of the readers of The Australian, both on the science and in his previous concern trolling, is an admission of political intent and the absence of a strong scientific case. In fact, the strongest scientific case Newman can make is that the cosmic ray theory “may” be right merely because he refuses to understand the AGW theory.

More concerning, however, are Newman’s links to murky anti-science group Stop These Things. In June Crikey revealed leaked emails outing Newman’s NIMBY wife as a key backer of their failed anti-wind farm rally:

Both the Pahls and the Newmans own property in the vicinity of proposed wind farms near the rural NSW squattocracy centres of Crookwell and Collector.

Strangely enough these vested interests were not disclosed in Newman’s opinion piece about vested interests. Also remaining undisclosed was Newman’s recent work for Newcrest Mining.

In a further blow to Newman’s declining credibility, his opinion piece has been heartily endorsed by serial climate deceiver Andrew Bolt who oddly uses it to attack the ABC for not reporting unremarkable facts like alleged non-statistically significant cooling since 2002, a fact Newman bizarrely claims “warmist” scientists aren’t aware of.

With opinion pieces like this, is it any wonder The Australian is marching towards bankruptcy?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Gosh, deceptive Andrew Bolt deceives readership on Arctic sea ice

Andrew Bolt, who is by his own definition both stupid and dishonest, is deceitfully trumpeting ice sea data from Steve Goddard, claiming that Arctic sea ice, which has only just begun its yearly descent, is “15% above last year” and the “highest in ten years”.

To prove this Goddard links to a graph created by the Danish Meteorological Institute which shows all of eight years of data, making it look as if there had been no changeThis is false, however, and Bolt is deliberately lying to you by hiding the rest of the data.

What maniacal Bolt fails to tell you in his abject glee at reporting a small upturn in sea ice extent at the beginning of the melt season is that the Arctic sea ice is still tracking far below the 1979-2000 average.

Global warming disproven!

This is not an upturn. This is a continuation of the long-term systematic loss of Arctic sea ice that has been recorded since 1979. Andrew Bolt doesn’t want you to know about this. Andrew Bolt wants you to believe the current extent is normal. This is a lie. You are being lied to.

Nothing to worry about!

Of course this isn’t the first time Bolt has crowed over a small rebound, having previously blown a load over the small gain in 2008 over 2007 and claiming that this was proof that predictions of sea ice loss in the Arctic was overstated.

Wrote Bolt:

In fact, the Arctic’s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year’s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

2008 was 10% above 2007. 2013 is 15% above 2012. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Good argument, if you’re gullible enough to believe that ice extent is linear and that ice doesn’t refreeze in winter (tip – it does).

Fact: 2012 beat the 2007 record by nearly one million sqaure kilometres. That is one million square kilometres after Bolt had claimed the ice had rebounded and there was nothing to worry about. Just like now.

But I’m sure this is the start of the upturn in ice extent. Bolt may have been wrong every other time he heralded the growth in ice, but this time…surely…

Bolt also does his usual trick of pretending that the views of a small group of scientists represent the consensus. The real insanity is pretending that Arctic sea ice isn’t tracking towards zero. You can’t just cry “rebound!” every year after a record low and expect the ice to follow.

Bolt’s gullible commenters chip in:

Hey Obama – the only “Flat Earther” in US politics is – YOU… Try getting some integrity and addressing the FACTS rather than pushing your “One World Socialist Govt” through climate change Agenda 21 cause you dishonest pig…

Socialist Greenie nutters are nothing more than dishonest insecure power nutters who must impose their will on others in order to feel remotely good about themselves because they are “saving the world” and furthering their grand “One World Govt” cause… Pathetic, and not fit for Leadership or public representation in any domain…

Wake up, America, like australia is doing.. YOU, (like us)HAVE BEEN HAD, BIG TIME!!!!!!

That’s some readership he has there. I guess if you lie to them long enough there’s little they won’t believe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Lying Andrew Bolt admits he is stupid and dishonest

Goodness, could it have only been back in January that serial failure Andrew Bolt posted these words:

I wouldn’t be so stupid or dishonest as to claim that weather in one part of the world says anything about the climate everywhere.

Fact: to measure what we call “global warming” we need global records, not anecdotes about temperatures in Australia or California.

Fact: by his own reasoning Andrew Bolt is both stupid and dishonest, because today he posted this:

First, why did Steffen not mention other recent weather anecdotes suggesting cooling? Why did he – or the ABC – not add that England had just had its coldest spring in 50 years or in many areas the coldest in 122 years? Why not mention France had its coldest spring in 26 years and the US its coldest in 17 years?

Second, why did Steffen – or the ABC – not give listeners the most obvious measure of global warming – not anecdotes about some heatwave somewhere but the actual temperature of the planet?

Why did Steffen not regale with hearty anecdotes about cold weather? Bolt told us back in January:

to measure what we call “global warming” we need global records

Global records! Shucks, do they even exist?

How about global temperature:

How about sea level rise?

How about Arctic sea ice extent?

How about ocean heat?

Are they globaly and recordy enough for you Andrew? Or do “global records” only count when they agree with your ideology?

Andrew Bolt expects you to believe that all this empirical evidence is meaningless because it’s a bit cold in Russia.

In Russia. 

Ask yourself – why is Andrew Bolt lying to you?

(Thanks to Hot Whopper for supplying the graphs even though I technically never asked permission)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Conspiracy theorist Jo Nova denies being conspiracy theorist

Crank Jo Nova has chucked a hissy fit over an excellent Paul Syvret column that labels her a “conspiracy theorist”:

It’s guilt by association, and three bonus mistakes in one sentence: Syvret can’t name any science the “deniers” deny, any “junk science” on my site, or any conspiracy theory I promote. Not firing blanks are we Paul?

Allow me:

1. ‘Syvret can’t name any science the “deniers” deny”

Deniers deny the peer reviewed equations of climate sensitivity, based on the paleoclimate, that shows a rise of between 2-4 degrees for a doubling of Co2. Deniers deny the globe has warmed due to Co2, regularly blaming it on the Urban Heat Island Effect/ENSO/The Sun/goblins. Deniers often deny that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Deniers deny that Co2 is in the atmosphere in large enough amounts to have any effect. Deniers deny that their own pet theories, which never appear in peer review, are wrong.

2. “can’t name…any “junk science” on my site”

This is too easy. Here’s just one example – how about publishing non-peer reviewed claims that the climate is set to drop 4.9 degrees over the coming decades. That’s as close to junk science as you’re going to find.

3. “can’t name…any conspiracy theory I promote”

Joanne Nova and her husband David Evans engage in numerous conspiracy theories, mostly to do with the “banking class” and their appropriation of global warming to maintain control.

Before I wrote about climate science I was writing about the markets.

Just to add some background, we’ve been invested in gold and gold related stocks for ten years. We watched money supply figures and “inflation” statistics and saw the gaping discrepancy. I was writing about gold and the coming financial storm in 2008 for news outlets like The Mining Chronicle before Lehman Bros fell, I was buying and selling gold contracts on the Comex futures exchange for a while too.

This is some explanation for regular readers who might wonder “why” non climate stories will begin to appear. The blog is here to expose deceitful reasoning and poor communication and how they are used against us. In the sense that truth is stranger than fiction, I’ve been lucky enough to come across some extraordinary tales.

This is also a primer for people who think that the economics jargon is not worth the effort. Wait til [sic] you hear what’s been going on.

Carbon is the second largest scam in history.

Let’s not overlook her belief in the insane Agenda 21 conspiracy:

Agenda 21 also appears in other forms like, ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Gilpin-Green says “When countries like the United States fail to adopt the environmentalist agenda promoted by the United Nations, that organization manages to bypass them by providing various incentives to state, county, and municipal organizations.” Apparently some towns get funding from the UN and display their cheques proudly. How does that work — taxpayers pay money to a government, which gives it to a foreign unelected body, which then pays their local council in order to gain influence? So much for your votes. When the chain of voting-to-power becomes so long and distant, it’s a case of your money, used against you.

That would be three to Mr Syvret and zero to Ms Nova.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Denial movement reeling: Andrew Bolt threatens to pull out of astroturfed rally

Recently an astroturf industry group that goes by the name “Stop These Things” has been making, if not headlines, midlines with a fake rally they’ll be holding to protest against the alleged evils of wind energy. Their website, anonymously authored and registered, is the usual ragtag bunch of rightwing memes, anti-science propaganda and pot-stirring that exploits the fears of the uneducated and elderly.

The group falsely claim to be non-partisan. They are so non-partisan the rally will be hosted by Alan Jones and attended by completely non-partisan politicians like Craig Kelly, Alby Schultz  and John Madigan – all of whom refuse to disclose names relating to Stop These Things and in some cases, deny even knowing.

(The notable exception is gullible Nick Xenophon, who was successfully petitioned to take the anti-wind reins of Steve Fielding in a concerted campaign targeting his office.)

There may be one notable absentee:

So it appears Andy is still smarting from his brush with the Galileo Movement, who continue to house anti-Semite Malcolm Roberts. Andrew has been careful of late to position himself away from the lunatic fringe, making him the centrist of the lunatic fringe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Shameless liar Andrew Bolt cherrypicks his way to climate failure

Racial vilification expert and leading anti-science fake sceptic Andrew Bolt, known for frightening children over their Sunday morning Rice Bubbles with his laughably wooden, smirk-laden performance on low rating (and recently demoted) Bolt Report, is so bored with global warming that he writes obsessively about it, getting everything wrong in the process. His latest is called “Signs that warming scare is all hot air“, in which Bolt lists ten reasons he believes the global warming “scare” is over.

Personally, I am perfectly comfortable calling Bolt a shameless liar. Bolt has the facts at his disposal, but chooses to deliberately mislead his audience for ideological reasons as I will demonstrate.

Let’s run through them, shall we?

Introduction

Firstly, the lies start off even before Bolt starts listing his scares. That’s an impressive attitude towards lying.

….the British Climatic Research Unit’s prediction that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”

A lie. The CRU said no such thing. A scientist did, but the CRU themselves made no such official prediction. To pretend otherwise is to deliberately mislead.

1. “1st sign: The world isn’t warming”

Bolt starts off by repeating the latest poorly thought out right-wing meme.

Yes, the planet warmed about 0.7 degrees last century, but then halted.

Professor Richard Lindzen, arguably the world’s most famous climate scientist, has argued for two years that “there has been no warming since 1997″. Others date the pause as late as 2000.

Sure, I could point out that “global warming” refers to an energy imbalance, not just surface temperature. I could point out that the oceans have continued to accumulate heat, that there has been a long-term loss of Arctic ice (Bolt has dropped this topic since embarrassingly claiming that 2008 was a rebound in the long term trend) or any of the 21,000 biological indicators that show continued warming. I could point out the abject dishonesty in pretending that short term temperature trends are statistically meaningless as they are warped by natural short term forcings like the 1998 El Nino.

Instead I’ll just show you this graph. A graph Bolt will never show you.

boltliarIt has warmed since 1997. Funny that.

Why is Andrew Bolt lying to you? If you trust him on climate, look at this graph and ask yourself “why am I being lied to?”

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 5 Comments