“The Royal Society’s Toned Down Climate Stance“. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (urging no policy because there is no warming) has jumped on the pretend bandwagon and “welcomed the Royal Society’s decision to revise and tone down its position on climate change.” They tell us the the Royal Society now agrees with them, and they’re now BFFs.
Whatever. The actual Royal Society pamphlet is in full agreement with the “consensus view” and the despised IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report.
Funny that the commenters are mistaking the labeled sketch of the Cryosat satellite on the Royal Society’s publication for an old-fashioned thresher while also talking about how they’re going to “teach the scientists.” Groan.
I thought this comment was a great summation of the chain of reasoning the average WUWT is going to employ based on what’s presented there
“link 1 – IAC showing the IPCC bias for not including skeptic content and showing lack of scientific rigor.
link 2 – The release of the CRU emails showing manipulation by high level climate scientists to bias the input to the IPCC toward AGW.
link 3 – IPCC chairman Pachari’s ineffective / non-professional behavior and questions about his ethics in the area of financial gains from his AGW policies as IPCC chairman.
link 4 – Conclusion that Mann’s hockey stick is an intentional manipulation of data to show recent industrial era warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years.
link 5 – MSM’s overselling of catastrophe and urgency. With no balanced reporting and saying the science is settled ad nauseum . . . . people do smell a rat. People know life is not settled . . . . .
link 6 – The unprofessional and biased handling of all major LST datasets. There is mishandling by scientists paid by public money.”
“link 9 – More and more skeptical papers are getting through the previously biased publication processes. Thanks to the persistence and integrity of those independent thinkers.
link 10 – The politicians sense the change of the wind on climate AGW support. See link 8 above. These guys are professional wind sniffers of the highest level . . . .
link 11 – No statistically significant warming in past ~10 years. Evidence indicates we maybe cooling. The GC models don’t work.”
“link 14 – The RS shifting toward inclusion of skeptical input and recognizing the uncertainties of the uncertainty.”
All of these links are entirely incorrect but are pushed heavily over at WUWT regardless. Disputing each and every one of them would take hours of effort.
[It’s the Gish Gallop. – Ben]
Why are you ignoring the article about the 10:10 campaign video?
[Um, because I haven’t bothered to read it yet? – Ben]
I see they’re all going not so much way over the top as out of the universe about ‘that’ short film. What can one say to them? So far I’m stumped.
If righteous indignation and explosive invective was science…