Climate Change Global Warming Unqualified Opinion

Thanks for all the great comments, guys

A note of thanks to all my intrepid and well-meaning commentators. Most of you are relatively in control of your emotions, which is so much of an improvement from a couple of years back when I got some nasty, threatening e-mails, and even a few heavy-breathing phonecalls. I did have a policeman in the house for a while with me – but that was only because we were house-sharing, not because I felt paranoid – which I didn’t. Feel paranoid, that is.

I’m hoping that Andrew Montford’s report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to be published over or just after this weekend, will show the same level of dignity in reply and opinion as your recent standard of commenting, not the distasteful “free speecher” rants we hear far too much of from American shock-jock-inspired attack “dogs”.

The one thing I don’t want to find on opening “Bishop Hill’s” work is a condemnation of the behaviour and attitudes of working Climate Change Scientists. First, because it is unfounded. And second, because ad hominem dissmisiveness is a pretty poor way to conduct a scientific discussion – just look at the years of suffering that Michael Mann and Ben Santer have had to endure – and now Phil Jones. It’s quite unreasonable.

Inquiry after inquiry, enquiry after enquiry and reading and re-reading of the academic e-mails of Climate Change Scientists has vindicated both their intentions and their approach. Their results speak for themselves, if you care to read them. The accusations of isolationism, dastardly collusion, secretiveness and mean-spiritedness are all baseless, concocted by those who refuse to accept the conclusions of the research.

Let’s see a few academic literature citations in your comments from now on, please. I want to know what research papers you are quoting from so that I can answer your points.

In the meantime, thanks for all the data which I shall be passing to my social science colleagues for their dissection and entertainment. No doubt some of your comments will become the basis of a thesis or two into grand public deceptions – denial of the serious impacts of Climate Change is only part of nearly a hundred years of public relations campaigns to guard the sanctity of the corporate right to make a profit at everybody else’s expense.

You’ve been had if you don’t read, understand and accept Climate Change Science.

I know there’s no convincing you. There’s always a core of die-hards who find it difficult to accept reality. And sadly, the Media contain a fair few Climate Change deniers in their management structure – leading to extremely poor presentation of the Science in the public domain.

Fortunately, the truth is emerging, slowly but surely.

Climate Change is already happening, is serious, is affecting numerous, interdependent parts of the Earth system, and is coming to a street near you in the very near future. Just check the weather reports of the world, and note signs of extreme weather events coming one after the other with no let-up.

That’s Climate Change for you – changing the odds of drought, deluge and storm.

One day you will have to accept the facts. It will hurt your pocket, risk your livelihood and bring food and energy insecurity, unless we make essential changes to the energy supply system starting from now – which involves the cooperation of the Oil and Gas companies, the electricity generation companies, China, India and all.

Everybody involved in the energy industry will need to change their business plans, because Fossil Fuels need to become mostly history.

Zero Carbon or bust.

7 replies on “Thanks for all the great comments, guys”

I guess it makes a change from the usual no comments?

That said, I do congratulate you, for showing them all, I have been endlessley deleted, failed moderation, or unable to respond to abuse, at other ‘climate change’ blogs, including RealClimate, and the Guardian ‘ironically’ called Comment is Free.


I think the reason that you have been barred from RealClimate and the gdn (smaller, but still with spelling errors) CommentisNotFree is quite possibly because your behaviour is perhaps considered highly irritating.

Maybe you should write to people at RealClimate and The Guardian and find out from them the style that they wish to see contributions made in. There may be certain key words or turns of phrase that they find hard to swallow, and they should let you know what those are so that you can avoid them and be allowed full public expression.

By way of a very small example, I don’t want people swearing or being misogynist, homophobic, anti-religion, rascist, or use hate speech here. If I receive comments of that nature they get spammed or edited. People appear to have learned what I do not tolerate and have changed their behaviour.

I strongly disagree with a lot of the content that people comment with, and some of the content contains unfounded accusations and often shows a total lack of knowledge, but as long as people aren’t promoting hate, or being mendacious about other people, they should find they get their comments approved here.

One particular thing I cannot abide – when people make things up about Scientists and blat these malicious rumours everywhere. The core content of the Climategate campaign was to denigrate and besmirch the reputation of Scientists, and I really object to that.

We all know that mistakes have been made in the course of Scientific discovery – and we know that many have later been corrected.

Climategate changed nothing about the Science. It still stands. The facts are still the facts and the peddlers of rumours have been shown to be on shaky ground.

I do hope that Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) has decided against sniping at Scientists in his report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – because if he has, I shall have to pull his work to shreds.

‘I do hope that Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) has decided against sniping at Scientists in his report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – because if he has, I shall have to pull his work to shreds.’

Wow .. that will sure be a contest to enjoy. The Bishop vs an Abbess!

I know which side my money will be on.

But please tell me…exactly what qualifications are needed to become a Scientist (with a capital S) in your eyes, and hence immune from any form of criticism? I have an MSc in Chemistry..does that count? I rather fancy a bit of infallibility (oops sorry – religion again)

“One particular thing I cannot abide – when people make things up about Scientists and blat these malicious rumours everywhere”

I agree with your statement so why do you persist in making things up about Steve McIntyre and other scientists with whom you disagree.

re. Montford’s forthcoming appraisal of whether the various enquiries into ClimateGate fulfilled their announced purpose, you threaten that if he is critical of the scientists involved “I shall have to pull his work to shreds”

That’s the best laugh I have had this morning. Thanks.

Montford is capable of sustained analysis and argument. All you seem to be capable of is eco-activism, full of rants and sloganising, nothing of any depth or substance. Have you ever written anything longer than a few pages ? Other than your perpetual sniping from the sidelines – some of which looks like exhibitionism – I can see no depth whatsoever.

Indeed to some, your shrillness is probably a liability to the Warmist cause.

the guardian moseration policy is well documented at Bishop Hill..

James Randerson (remeber him, from your RealClimate comments) came along and made a bit of a fool of himself..

I merely posted to The Guardian, that given that they had allowed a paid PR person like Bob Ward a forum to pronounce his alleagtions against ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ that it might be fair to allow him to reply, and I included a link to Bishop Hill’s rresponse…

That is ALL I commented..

As Bishop Hill was aalso barred from the Guardian – see bishop Hill.

Subsequently, the guardian have made a number of ‘changes’ to Bob Ward’s article. and included a link to Bishop Hill’s response, at the top of the article..

As I said, I congrtaulat you on allowing all comments here, I have always followed house rules at the guardian..

Much stronger, abusive coomentors have been allowed at the guardian, all on the pro side. as warming is appently editorial policy

sorry for the typo’s, dashed it off in the middle of bathtime and bed time for children.

check out the comments, James Randerson appears…. I complain about being deleted by the guardian and the tory party, (do I get a prize) always polite and followed house rules..


you have never delted me, what are the Guardain and Realclimate afraid of, there policy of ‘moderating’ away other voices, is counter productive in the world of the blogosphere, as anybody just put there comment elsewhere, and ask, why do they need to do this. ie at Bishop Hill…

Then people may question, why they feel the need to ‘moderate’ voices that ‘politely’ disagree. Yet allowing quite abusive comments from the ‘pro’ side.

You are insightful enough to see why the ‘Polar Bear’ poster child no longer works, ie public cyncism, this sort of moderation behaviour is much more visible now, and will give rise similar public cynicism.. I actually like the Guardian on the whole and read it regularly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.