Whack Job Of The Day

Check out this world class nut case who said she wanted to interview me.

Me :

Hope,

I hope you can keep an open mind, be civil and learn from me. That is the key to being a successful adult.

When would you like to do the interview?

ScreenHunter_7783 Mar. 07 18.10

Can you keep an open mind that might admit science’s work on AGW is valid?

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+american+dark+money&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Click to access ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

What’s your take on how all these scientists are faking a math based science .. yet are able to make the math add up across disciplines, contents and decades in the greatest cabal of gangster thug scientists ever known to science?

How do they make all that fake math add up?

(Please don’t refer to the fake climate gate scandal as your answer there .. try to be original and use cited argument, thanks)

I’m available any day this week except Monday. What time zone are you in? I’m in Cali.

My response

Hope,

Scientists who are skeptics get attacked, ostracized and have their funding cut off. The White House openly states at the top of BarackObama.com that they are attacking skeptics.

My friend Dr. Bill Gray at CSU had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993, despite being the most respected hurricane forecaster in the world. He never got another penny of funding, because he is a skeptic.

Intimidation works. There is huge amounts of money coming from people who have a global warming agenda, and almost none for skeptics. I know, because I have been unable to raise any. Anyone in it for the money would choose to be an alarmist. Period.

I will only agree to the interview if you agree to use it only unedited and complete as taped live. No cutting pieces out and making hit pieces. That is dirty pool and I will have no part of it.

ScreenHunter_7783 Mar. 07 18.10

I hear a ‘no’, as trained you will not be open to the idea that climate science is valid. Is that what I hear you saying, yes or no?

BUSH also fired climate scientists that did not toe HIS line:

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/manipulation-of-global.html

As was one of MY friends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7FK2q2eJ4

You would never weather an interview with me.  I will destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease and broadcast it – much like Merchant of Doubt does with Moreno – he will soon be exposed and relegated to the nearest street corner to scream his insanities..where he belongs.

Your polemics are weak – I can easily cite millions made by oil paid denier scientists. If you believe Big Oil is being bullied by the Big Green’s funding, you are about to get exposed as an oil paid talking points mindless parrot.

And I see you can not address the question about how they make all those math based lies add up. It’s an inane position and you know it.

I’d advise you to put on your seat belt. The industry funded climate change denial machine will humiliate the radical right conservative cause this year – and your cabal will be seen as the humanity destroying profit machine it is, lying ot the American people to defend the massive fossil fuel entrenched power.

http://priceofoil.org/campaigns/separate-oil-and-state/dirty-energy-money/

I’d advise you to run. You are simply giving me more and more material proving my point. Know this – I am here to expose your career as a misinformationist. I won’t be swayed and I will achieve my goal. My nation deserves to have a real conversation about energy. As long as industry trained talking points propagandists like yourself have a mike, that is impossible.

My response

I have no ties with any industry with any interest in climate. I do my own work. Your claims are scurrilous, unfounded and disgusting.

The question “climate science is valid yes/no?” indicates that you have no idea what science is about. Science consists of thousands of different ideas, not a statement of truth from the borg.

Is this climate science valid?

ScreenHunter_36-Feb.-07-00.051 (1)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/

I also receive no funding. Do you lie about people as a general practice?

I gave you the terms of the interview. Live, complete, unedited. No use of the media in any other form permitted. Do you agree to that, yes or no?

ScreenHunter_7783 Mar. 07 18.10

That’s the best you’ve got?

I’d need to go back over the convo to highlight every strawman and deflection you post. I’ll get to that later if I feel it’s worth my time.

So, you said you do interviews ‘all of the time’, but if anyone wants to watch, they have to tune into live stream? So you have like 0 – 12 viewers per interview? You don’t allow the entire uncut convo to be rebroadcast .. and people agree to this “all the time”? Do you wonder why I don’t buy that? I can’t find one link to a past live stream interview of you. What if someone watching the livecast records and edits it? Yet no one does? If you can’t produce evidence that you do interviews “all of the time”, I’ll go with you’re fibbing about that, too.

I have no doubt you would not agree to an interview with me even if I agree to only rebroadcast it uncut.

Please do re-read .. I don’t believe I’ve EVER claimed you are industry paid. You are industry trained .. you repeat industry’s propaganda talking points .. would you need me to list those for you?

My response

I have no industry training or ties. I ride my bicycle everywhere. I am a lifelong environmentalist. I fought for the Clean Air Act. I volunteered two summers as a wilderness ranger. I hate cars. You have no idea who I am.

Do you agree to my terms, or are you going to chicken out?

ScreenHunter_7783 Mar. 07 18.10

Wow.. fabulous material. Love the ad hom, the blind faith in you .. even when your claims are not backed up by your article .. if anyone looked closely .. but they don’t. I love how that one got 66 comments and how drawn they all are to personal attack. Will you post the first two that you omitted please? So funny – after you berate me for supposed out of context work.   I’m more than happy to do an interview live stream. Someone WILL record it and edit it, obviously .. you are well known name (politicians sadly quote you) – and you will have to admit you lied about doing past interviews “all of the time”.  I was hoping you would post the email chain, tho. Thanks.

My response

It is unacceptable that the interview is edited

BTW – “personal attack” seems to be your entire MO. You even brag about it.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

436 Responses to Whack Job Of The Day

  1. Gads. That word salad hurts my head.

    • Hope says:

      I know, Steve is hard to read.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Basically, he said that you are full of crap.

        What part of this is hard for you to understand?

        “I gave you the terms of the interview. Live, complete, unedited. No use of the media in any other form permitted. Do you agree to that, yes or no?”

        Just a YES or NO was all he wanted from you,but you give him a bunch of crap in reply.

        That is why many here think you are full of crap.

        • Hope says:

          How you buy it.

          ““I gave you the terms of the interview. Live, complete, unedited. No use of the media in any other form permitted. Do you agree to that, yes or no?”

          Do you think the statement may be out of context?

        • AndyG55 says:

          You may Hope for peace, but with your stupidity, you will never get it.

          Your soul is so putrid, it will never know peace.

        • AndyG55 says:

          We KNOW that your ilk will bend and slime any comment. that is what you do, that is WHO you are.

          I would advise SG to take his whole camera crew as well, so that YOU CANNOT HIDE behind selective editing when he trounces your ignorant butt !

      • richard says:

        Hope,

        just do the interview, unedited, as Steve suggests, then we can see how honest you are.

        It’s that simple!!

        • Hope says:

          I’ve said to him repeatedly that I would be happy to do that – my question was – how would you STOP someone from recording the livestream, then later editing it?

          I think this group does not realize that is possible. Screencast???

          Also – Steve claims he does these interviews ‘all of the time’ .. I believe that is a lie .. you?

        • talldave2 says:

          ” how would you STOP someone from recording the livestream, then later editing it?”

          By having our own copy, obviously. This is not our first rodeo.

      • richard says:

        Steve can take great delight that his blog is becoming very effective in destroying the madness of the alarmists.

        Now which alarmist will step up and take him on – unedited.

      • Rosco says:

        Why would the “Big Oil” industry waste a penny on so-called “anti-science and anti global warming/climate change” activism ???

        They have absolutely no need to do anything like that.

        If they are the “satanic” money grubbing monsters as people like you portray them why would they bother wasting even a penny when ordinary people simply can’t get enough of their products ?

        The real fact is that an overwhelming majority of the population will purchase fossil fuel energy products simply because modern life – including the internet – is just not possible without them.

        We know you are fake because you are using “evil fossil fuels ” to carry on your facile ad-hominem attacks !

        At least we are not hypocrites because we acknowledge we do not believe that 0.04 % of the atmosphere which undergoes no phase change does not control the weather or the climate.

        Mount any sort of scientific based argument to prove you actually understand what the hypothesis actually claims – that is a challenge to you right there !

      • You must be difficult to read, Hope. You have had 3 blogs for 3 years with a total of 289 profile views (including my viewing them). Steven has had 352 comments on this “conversation” with you in less than 48 hours. If you were so well read and respected, wouldn’t you have a larger audience? Those in glass houses…

      • Andrew Russell says:

        “Steve is hard to read”. Only to an illiterate anti-science, anti-human cretin who is willfully ignorant and refuses to engage in honest debate.

        This ignoramus thinks we don’t know about:
        Yamal
        Upside-Down Tijlander
        Hide-the-Decline
        Ftp directories named “CENSORED”
        short-centered principle components analysis
        strip-bark pine tree cores
        Gleickgate
        28Gate
        Lonnie Thompson “serial non-archiver” (ht to Stephen McIntyre)
        Sheep Mountain
        Harry Read-me
        “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
        “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

        We understand that real scientists follow the Scientific Method, and that her “climate scientists” refuse to do so.

        We understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is trivially true and trivially unimportant. That the real claim behind Imminent! Global! Catastrophe! Whose! Only! Solution! Is! State! Socialism! is that the Earth’s climate is dynamically unstable with respect to temperature perturbations (“positive feedback”). Of course the fact that there is not the slightest evidence in the historical or geological record for that does not matter to anti-science bigots like “Hope”

    • sunsettommy says:

      So far, Hopeless is indeed proving herself to be a “whack job of the day” .

      Marvelous!

      • Hope says:

        And Steve’s fans prove themselves in their own words.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And you prove yourself by your ignorance.

          But please stop, my sides are hurting from laughter at your incompetence and ignorance. !

        • gator69 says:

          About as knowledgeable as our EPA chief who did not know the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, did not know that natural disasters are not increasing, and did not know that model projections have all failed.

          Brilliant! 😆

        • Rosco says:

          The really funny thing is I have actually NEVER seen any discussion of any SCIENCE by people like you !

          Not one single rational argument explaining the mathematics you claim is indisputable !

          Do you even understand the basics of the hypothesis behind greenhouse gas driven global warming ??

          If you do prove it by posting something – anything – that even remotely demonstrates you actually have any idea of what the hypothesis claims and there will be many people ready to debate your explanation in a civilized manner.

          All of this insult and ignorant name calling is simply a sideshow usually run by unintelligent people unable to rationally justify their point of view.

          Show us you can understand the physics and support it in rational argument – that is a challenge !

        • Rosco says:

          To clarify – my post obviously refers to Hope – although if alarmists get their way there will be no hope for most.

      • Hope says:

        THIS is new .. why are there no REPLY buttons?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep, its quite the show, totally hilarious..

        and so helpful to the realist cause ,

        because it shows just how little the alarmista have to offer, a zero space brainless twerp !!

        Did you all see that EPA chief the other day.. absolutely HILARIOUS. 🙂

        • Hope says:

          Actually scientists laughed at Sessions .. no doubt you loved his repeating of Industry talking points .. he reps well for the fossil fuel industry.

        • sunsettommy says:

          You are the dumb one, Hopeless. The EPA chief couldn’t answer simple climate questions.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The EPA chief couldn’t answer simple climate questions”

          Neither can Hopeless

          The in-your-face ignorance is strong with those two !!

  2. Inane as it would likely be, I would love to see that interview. You gonna take up the offer?

    • I told her I would do it live, complete and unedited. Her MO is to cut and paste to make people look bad. I told her I will not grant the interview unless she agrees to not to use the interview video in any other form..

      • AndyG55 says:

        You should also try to tie down her funding.

        • Hope says:

          Have you tied down Steve’s funding? I am starting a non-profit production company and am now funded by donations. I keep a very low overhead in service to the work I’m doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&list=PL1CFE0B0689BD5942&spfreload=10

        • Hope says:

          Not many pieces where I do this tho – you MAY note: ‘Her MO is to cut and paste to make people look bad.’ Steve

        • sunsettommy says:

          Hope,

          why can’t you just meet Steve’s conditions?

          He has a good reason for making the request.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “‘Her MO is to cut and paste to make people look bad.’”

          SO true.

          Take your own camera crew SG, this slimo is out to “verbal” anything you say.

          Its what they do. twist and slime.

          Come on little girl..

          I’ve dealt with low-IQ high school children for a long time..

          You are way below that level. !!

          The barrel has a hole in it, and you and yours tried scrapping the bottom..

          dug deep .. and here you are !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yep, certainly looks very low budget.. amateurish and pointless.

          The only people who would pay you for that garbage are other whack-jobs, even dumber than you. !

      • B says:

        They’ll edit anyway. People with causes like this don’t feel any need to honor agreements. Don’t bother unless you have a raw copy you control. Not one you’ll get from the interviewer later, one that you get to make and control from the very start.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Remember what the ABC tries with JoNova..

          thankfully Jo had extra people also filming and recording.

        • Tel says:

          That’s what contracts are for. Make sure someone with deep pockets is signing.

        • B says:

          Contracts are only as good as the lawyers you can hire to enforce them.
          Furthermore, good luck winning as “climate change denier” in a government court.

        • Hope says:

          If you live stream anyone can record it. ICYMI

        • AndyG55 says:

          “If you live stream anyone can record it’

          Wouldn’t put it past you to tamper with the live stream.

          Its what you do, its who you are.

        • Stephen Richards says:

          I think that’s the point. Steve would need to take his own team and his team only would have to be the broadcaster (live). Once oiks like this one get the recording, even though they may have signed a contract of no re-broadcast, they know that once they let the genie out of the box you can’t put it back.

          LIVE, NO RECORDING DEVICES, Broadcast over the web. That way there will always be an unedited version in archive.

          GHrab it with both hands mouth almighty. Ah but you can’t can you? Tony will eat you alive and you know it. Chicken little, big mouth. I used to call men of your ilk , all mouth and trousers. A woman equivelent might be all vagina and skirt.

      • Thought.as much. Such a shame. You could always take your own camera crew, as JoNova did.

      • Lance says:

        You might want to peruse her web presence. She seems quite unhinged.
        https://www.blogger.com/profile/14358990916674292876

        Just a thought.

      • Hope says:

        I LOVE this piece! You have no idea how badly it plays, do you? Wow.

        “I told her I would do it live, complete and unedited. Her MO is to cut and paste to make people look bad. I told her I will not grant the interview unless she agrees to not to use the interview video in any other form..” Steve

        ” What if someone watching the livecast records and edits it? Yet no one does? If you can’t produce evidence that you do interviews “all of the time”, I’ll go with you’re fibbing about that, too.” Hope

        I wouldn’t need to cut and paste to make you look bad, Steve, you do that well all by yourself.

        Your peeps here don’t catch the real convo? I believe that. Well trained, friends, you are highly well trained.

        • sunsettommy says:

          No Hope, it is well known that Main stream Media, edits News and Interviews,to meet their own objectives, which are rarely compatible with what is really going on.

          Tony, made it clear to you, the easy to meet conditions, and you behave like the slippery eel in reply. It is clear you are not looking for the honest interview. You said this: “I wouldn’t need to cut and paste to make you look bad, Steve, you do that well all by yourself.”

          A truly honest,competent interviewer would allow the interviewee, to speak for themselves and let it all be heard. That is what Tony wanted, but you on the other hand,……

          You have expressed strong prejudice, against Tony.

          You are thus exposed.

        • Tommy, stop interrupting Hope’s emotional outbursts with appeals to reason.

        • You are a paranoid slanderer Hope. I have no contact with any energy industry, much less any training or funding.

          Who does your paranoid little mind believe is “training” me?

        • JoshC says:

          I think there is something lost in comprehension here. The terms for Hope are:

          ” I told her I will not grant the interview unless she agrees to not to use the interview video in any other form”

          Hope’s reply is:

          “What if someone watching the livecast records and edits it?”

          As I see it, Steve is not asking that I, or anyone else is banned from recording the livecast and editing it. Only that Hope is banned from using it in some other edited form. I would be free to make either Hope or Steve look as silly as I would want to.

          The reply is negated by the clarity of the request as first proposed, as I see it. To put it more accurately, the reply is fighting an argument that wasn’t presented, and hence is a excellent example of a ‘Strawman’ fallacy.

          I would say we can see the real conversation here Hope. Your reply and what seems like indignation is not based on what Steve requested, and we can see that very clearly.

          I welcome you to show us where Steve had produced a “Strawman” fallacy in return.

          Thank you,

        • talldave2 says:

          “I LOVE this piece! You have no idea how badly it plays, do you? Wow.”

          Please stop making comments like this, you have already broken several irony meters and I don’t have time to repair them.

    • norilsk says:

      I had a huge debate with her at the 50-1 project interview of Anthony Watts. It was a shock to come here and see her again.

      • Gail Combs says:

        For those of us who can not view that interview. Tell us what Hope was like. Did she actually have any knowledge or was she a light weight?

        • norilsk says:

          She seemed to be somewhat clueless. Note that at the video I use my other pen name of jordapen.

        • Hope says:

          Obviously – you can view the video and whole “huge” 6 round go around here:

          ” Note that at the video I use my other pen name of jordapen.”
          Sockpuppet alias .. love that.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Gail, she posted her arguments below the interview, but she was not in Topher’s interview with Mr. Watts. One of her arguments with Jordapen was about CO2 greening the planet; in which she claimed that that’s just propaganda paid for by industry and the Heartland Institute. She demanded Jordapen provide a citation.

          Citation to debunk that claim is easy. The latest CSIRO scientific study in 2013 showed the tiny increase in CO2 has shown remarkable greening of the planet, in the last three decades. http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx It is referred to as “CO2 fertilization.”

          These empirical results are critical, as they are the polar opposite of what the CO2-centric AGW models and projections were – they predicted “desertification”. The real-world experiment results disagree with the hypothesis.

          Or, perhaps CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), which is the federal government agency for scientific research in Australia, is also funded by Heartland. /sarc

        • talldave2 says:

          The “greening” result is perhaps the perfect exemplar of the problem with climate change propaganda. When global cooling was the problem, it was a really, really bad problem with the same solution as the really, really bad global warming problem that supplanted it. It’s obvious to anyone with a few functioning brain cells that there’s been a huge bias towards alarmism.

          Honestly, if you could get these people to read Tetlock I think half of them would slink off in embarassment. The other half simply don’t care, they have a cause and facts be damned.

      • Hope says:

        You may want to look up the word “huge” and yes, Watts is another industry trained talking points parrot.

        No doubt many regard him over science .. again, as trained by the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine:

        http://www.salon.com/2015/03/07/climate_denial_the_ghosts_of_the_cold_war_and_the_legacy_of_nietzsche/

      • Stephen Richards says:

        What’s it like debating a brick wall?

    • Hope says:

      How many of Steve’s Livestream interviews have you seen?

      Can you cite any? Steve claims he does them “all of the time” … you must have a few citations to prove that.

      Anyone can record a livestream – why has no one done that, if Steve does these interviews “all of the time”?

      • Hugh K says:

        I’ll answer that if you first answer my question – After being lied to by the 2014 Liar of the Year in Chief, and then berated as “stupid” by Obama henchman Jonathan Gruber, why do you still support these clowns?

  3. Joseph says:

    This person is the epitome of a climate nut job.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      This person is the epitome of a climate nut job.

      TFIFY

    • Disillusioned says:

      And a conspiracy theorist who “won’t be swayed” by facts.

      • Hope says:

        Science is described as a conspiracy theory here .. how quaint.

        Can you explain how all those thug gangster scientists make all that fake math based science add up across decades, disciplines and continents? None of you have been able to explain that so far.

        The great conspiracy theory is that THAT is even possible. “100K scientists are colluding in a cabal to destroy the planet”..or the poor or whatever talking point you want to insert…. is (drumrolllll) a conspiracy theory!!!

        (it will be hard for you to keep up – but you should try .. it’s fun!)

        • gator69 says:

          Can you please list those 100,000 scientists?

          Thanks!

        • AndyG55 says:

          I can show you a list of some 30,000 odd that think CO2 warming is a SCAM.

          Where is your list, little girl ?!

        • Hope Forabrain, I have a question. If people who pretend to be scientists study climate, and some think CO2 is a problem and some don’t, and the ones who do get billions in government grant money, and the ones who don’t get all their funding cut off, how long before all the funded wannabe scientists agree with each other? I say about a month, maybe 2, what say you?

          The fact that you think oil companies fund climate science means you’re a fool. Oil companies don’t need to fund it, because the government makes more money from oil than they do. 25 to 75 cents tax per gallon last I looked. Oil companies only get around 4% profit. The government funds all climate science. Idiot.

        • Cornelius says:

          Hope, I disagree with your implication, that global warming numbers add up across decades, disciplines, and continents. The claimed amount of global warming over approx. the past century does not agree with the ground-based thermometer record. Most of the warming appears only after data adjustment. In the U.S. in particular all of the warming during the 20th century is derived from the adjustments. Also, for recent decades, claimed warming disagrees with two satellite records, along with the ground-based thermometer record. Another example: most computer models have overestimated warming, even vis a vis the adjusted temperature record. When you dig below the surface, the numbers do not add up at all. There are numerous other examples.

          A question for you. The AKProductions web site claims a doubling of category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes. While I have heard predictions to this effect, I’ve not seen evidence. Do you have a link handy, which demonstrates a genuine trend?

    • Hope says:

      Yes .. I still regard science .. I have no bought into the industry bought cli9mate science denial talking points – no doubt that makes me a loon here:

      http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

      • sunsettommy says:

        Your link starts off with the usual consensus 97% crap.

        That is not science.

        • Hope says:

          Yes .. no doubt .. it’s posted by the AAAS .. clearly NOT a science org, huh?

          Yea .. they do like …. car insurance or something …. ohhh noooo .. they are the cabal of fake scientist thug gangsters! yea .. that’s the ticket.

        • gator69 says:

          God leftists are gullible! 😆

          “An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

          And here were the questions asked:

          1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
          2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

          Significant can be 10%. Note that there was no opportunity in the survey (which was not subject to peer, or any other review, which explains its blatant flaws) to quantify or even
          discuss what part natural variability had to play. They sent out 10,257 surveys,
          received 3146 replies (seems that most Earth scientists were not even concerned
          enough to reply), and used only 79 to come up with a 97% consensus that the
          Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and man may have been a minor
          contributor. By their ‘figuring’ that means that 2.5% of those who responded to
          the survey agree the Earth has warmed. EARTH SHATTERING!!! 😆

          This is the sort of manipulation that warmists use to fool the public into thinking we have
          a problem. Truth be told, I would answer ‘yes’ to question 1, and ‘maybe’ to
          question 2.

          If you do not understand that you have been duped by the grantologists, I have a very nice bridge for sale, and 97% of bridge experts say you should buy it.

        • sunsettommy says:

          It does not matter what “science” group it is, the consensus crap is still crap. It does not validate any science research.

          It is REPRODUCIBLE science research that matters, not how many people like an idea.

        • Dave N says:

          Hope: you really ought to check this out:

          http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

          The “consensus” argument is number 4: Appeal To Belief
          The “because its the AAAS” argument is number 3: Appeal To Authority.

          They’re both major fallacies, i.e. invalid arguments, thus demonstrating that you’re failing miserably at rational argument.

  4. emsnews says:

    Hey, I vote you go on this woman’s show! It would be hilarious. She might even explode. Think about the entertainment value of this. 🙂

  5. Bruce says:

    Bush didn’t fire climate scientists. He let James Hansen corrupt NASA GISS and publicly endorsed Kerry in 1984. Hansen SHOULD have been fired.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3671

  6. Bruce says:

    Please remove the d on the end of endorsed above.

  7. Alan Poirier says:

    Hmm, Hope For-peace? Think I.M. Justice knows her quite well.

  8. Michael 2 says:

    Hysterical. 🙂

    The problem with “Merchant of Doubt” is that it very likely reaches only the Faithful anyway so isn’t nearly as powerful as your email writer seems to think.

    Inasmuch as interviewers are free to edit interviews, there’s no telling what would end up going on the air.

    “I can easily cite millions made by oil paid denier scientists.”

    Let’s see the list 😉

    • AndyG55 says:

      ““I can easily cite millions made by oil paid denier scientists.”

      yeah . as if !!
      and even on the small possibility that she could, how does that match the BILLIONS and BILLIONS paid to the alarmista priests. !

    • Tel says:

      I was about to say the same. She can publish the list any time, no one is stopping her.

    • Hope says:

      Have you not read Heartlands budget? Do you know how much Idso is paid per month to lie to you? Nah. Of course Willie meets the $1 million mark .. are you really not well read on the subject? Do I have to go get the citation for you?

      Can you address the contents of “Merchants of Doubt”?

      http://www.npr.org/2015/03/06/391269315/merchants-of-doubt-explores-work-of-climate-change-deniers

      Do you know you are a consumer of the merchant’s of doubt’s product?

      • sunsettommy says:

        Have you noticed that you ignore the BILLIONS, Governments dole out to promote the CO2 is gonna kill us all paradigm.

        Dr. Soon never got that much money, take 40% of that off and the spread the remaining over 20 years.

        The NYT, showed the true set up,that Dr. Soon was being paid by his employer, who knew in advance of the funding and research proposals.

        • Hope says:

          “he CO2 is gonna kill us all paradigm” You may be referring ot climate science, I can’t tell.

          “Dr. Soon never got that much money” Doyou deduct taxes when you quote environmentalist funding?

          “Dr. Soon was being paid by his employer,”
          Yes – if you consider the fossil fuel industry his employer:

          “[Soon] has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. ”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

          And industry thanks you for your support of their talking points:
          http://blog.heartland.org/2015/02/the-crucifixion-of-dr-wei-hock-soon/

          If the finding did not effect the research why were all of findings in line with industry talking points?

        • AndyG55 says:

          The TINY amount Dr. Soon received pales into insignificance compared to the astronomical waste of funds of the alarmista industry !

        • AndyG55 says:

          This is YOUR tax money.. Wasted, .. although I’m sure the Green slime entrepreneurs behind all these companies don’t think so.

          Where did all that money go ??????

        • Stephen Richards says:

          Ther you go mouthy

          Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!

          Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!

          ============================

          By reader Jimbo

          We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.

          1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
          History

          From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,

          This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
          …British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……

          2. Sierra Club
          TIME – 2 February 2012

          Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
          TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”

          3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
          [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

          2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
          2007: Partners – BP
          2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
          2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell

          4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
          Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…

          Financial Support First Phase (2010)
          …Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
          Second Phase (2011)
          …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
          Third Phase (2012)
          …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
          Fourth Phase (2013)
          …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…

          5. 350.org

          350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
          [Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”

          6. Union of Concerned Scientists

          The 2013 Annual Report PDF

          UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”

          Annual Report 2002 PDF

          The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”

          Friends of UCS

          The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”

          7. University of California, Berkeley
          CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership

          What is CalCAP?
          The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”

          8. University of California, Berkeley
          UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007

          BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”

          9. Climate Institute
          About Us

          The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…

          Donors
          American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”

          10. EcoLiving

          About
          …EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”

          Sponsors
          2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”

          11. Nature Conservancy
          Climate Change Threats and Impacts

          Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”

          12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010

          …What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”

          13. America’s WETLAND Foundation

          Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”

          PDF

          Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”

          Sponsors

          World Sponsor: Shell
          Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
          National Sponsors: British Petroleum”

          14. Green Energy Futures
          About Us

          Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
          Gold Sponsor: Shell”

          15. World Resources Institute
          Climate

          WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.

          ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB

          …Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”

          16. Purdue Solar
          Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013

          Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”

          17. AGU Fall Meeting
          9-13 December 2013
          Thank You to Our Sponsors

          The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
          2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
          ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”

          18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
          About our funders

          …exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.

          We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….

          Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”

          19. Dr. Michael Mann
          WUWT – October 15, 2013

          …it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”

          [Comments]

          Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

          Why stop at Koch funding?
          Exxon Mobil Corporation
          2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
          …..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230…”

          20. Stanford University
          New York Times – 21 November 2002
          By ANDREW C. REVKIN

          Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
          Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”

          21. National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012
          by Wendi Liles

          You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE…. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society…”

          22. Duke University

          ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007

          ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.”

          23. Alberta Water Council PDF

          Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.
          …Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada”

          24. University of California, Davis
          Institute of Transportation Studies PDF

          10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy
          Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change
          Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences
          VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?
          September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…”

          25. Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015

          Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
          Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
          A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…”
          – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#comment-1013921

        • BruceC says:

          Additional ‘big oil funding’ to Stephen Richards’ comment above.

          Just a wee small sample of ‘big oil funding’ from the The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and where it really goes to:

          From 2003 to present;

          Bill McKibben’s;
          Step it Up (US$200,000)
          1Sky.org (US$2,100,000)
          350.org (US$875,000)
          Total = US$3,175,000

          The Sierra Club: from 2009 = US$1,665,000
          Friends of the Earth: from 2009 = US$777,500
          The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): from 2004 to 2008 = US$670,000
          Greenpeace Fund = US$550,000
          Center for Climate Strategies = US$5,171,600
          The Union of Concern Scientists = US$75,000 (2009)

          TOTAL = US$12,084,100

          Sceptic ‘think tanks’;
          The Heartland Institute
          The Global Warming Policy Foundation
          = US$0.00

          Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
          http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search

          Do the search yourself……I dare you!

      • sunsettommy says:

        I notice you didn’t answer his question.

        • Hope says:

          If I did .. I’m fairly sure you would not notice.

        • David A says:

          Hope, I certainly notice your silence when shown the true facts. Oh and know you are wrong; the 40 percent off the top for Dr. Soon was the cut his employer, (not Big Oil) takes before he pays for his research, then he got what was left, and after writing off the cost of his research, he then paid taxes. And it was all above board. Get informed.

          You ignore all real questions. You ignore numerous posts showing you have the funding structure of climate science ass backwards.. You start the conversation with childish ignorant insults, and then complain when others fire back. Your are clearly ignorant about the deeply flawed 97 percent study; there are zero studies showing a consensus exists postulating the theory of CAGW. Your not even wrong 97 study at best means scientists, skeptics and believers, accept that humans affect the climate. The affect is not qualified as good, bad indifferent extreme, or moderate. The study is irrelevant to political policy.

      • sunsettommy says:

        It is true, that you didn’t read that NYT link you provided, in it are contractual documents showing HIS employer getting ALL of the funds from various places, including some from “fossil fuel” companies.

        You call yourself some kind of a journalist?

        Ha ha ha……

  9. annieoakley says:

    The guy up West Divide Creek? I am very familiar with the area, drilling in the area and impacts of said drilling up west divide creek. Nothing broke, no chemical spills, a few gallons of chemicals used if that. No earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, too much rain, too much snow, droughts, forest fires, They came, fracked, cleaned up and left. Not a big deal. The meth in the area comes from the Mexican drug Cartels. Meth was there before and is there after. I have a friend who lives on West Divide Creek and my in-laws lived further up the creek for 25 years.

  10. craigm350 says:

    I half expected her to finish with “I am invincible!”

    Science consists of thousands of different ideas, not a statement of truth from the borg.

    So true.

    • craigm350 says:

      Borg sister Katharine Hayhoe is another whack job.

      “[winter] looks a lot different than it used to 50 or 100 years ago”

      http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/clueless-kathy/

    • Hope says:

      I CRY FOUL – Steve left out two emails – and I thought he was intellectually honest .. /s.

      My questions:

      “Can you keep an open mind that might admit science’s work on AGW is valid?”

      ‘What’s your take on how all these scientists are faking a math based science .. yet are able to make the math add up across disciplines, contents and decades in the greatest cabal of gangster thug scientists ever known to science?

      How do they make all that fake math add up?”

      Steve NEVER answers the latter, his answer to the first question appears a few emails later:

      “The question “climate science is valid yes/no” indicates that you have no idea what science is about. Science consists of thousands of different ideas, not a statement of truth from the borg.”

      No .. I asked IF Steve would be OPEN to the idea that climate science was valid. I didn’t ask IF climate science is valid …

      THIS: “climate science is valid yes/no” .. is a lie. Steve made up the quotes, I clearly did not say that … and he even gives you the evidence.

      Can you see the difference between these two sentences?

      “The question “climate science is valid yes/no”
      “Can you keep an open mind that might admit science’s work on AGW is valid?”

      • sunsettommy says:

        This is getting really interesting!

        • Hope says:

          Cool .. address the comment .. I look forward to it.

          My FAV comment of yours so far:

          “sunsettommy says:
          March 8, 2015 at 6:13 am

          Dr. Soon is paid by him employer. He didn’t get any of it personally from “oil” money, meanwhile why not explain why the Sierra Club accept “oil” money?”

          Sure – Sierraclub believed the nat gas industry when they claimed nat gas was a bridge fuel. In fact it isn’t much better than coal, if at all:

          “The first thorough comparison of evidence for natural gas system leaks confirms that organizations including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have underestimated U.S. methane emissions generally, as well as those from the natural gas industry specifically.”

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/methane-leaky-gas-021314.html

          .. and the nat gas (methane) industry has no plan for it to be a bridge fuel. T Boone puts it best. Watch this boys, the quantity of fossil fuels T Boon talks about will put you in Zen Nirvana:

          .. if you’re talking about nat gas related funding, when you don’t cite, it’s hard to know.

          But, don’t get me started on fracking.

        • gator69 says:

          So the guy who invested millions in wind turbines says gas is bad. Who woulda thunk it?

          Businessman T. Boone Pickens was dropped from the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans after losing much of his fortune in the wind farming industry.

          According to Forbes, Pickens’ fortune dropped below the $ 1 billion mark for the first time since 2005. His net worth once amounted to an estimated $2 billion, but now it sits at around $950 million.

          He told the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that he had “lost [his] ass in the [wind] business.” He added, “the jobs are in oil and gas.”

          In 2008, Pickens debuted his “Pickens Plan,” which aimed to increase the nation’s use of wind energy and decrease America’s dependence on OPEC oil. With the help of investors he spent 80 million dollars on TV ads to promote his plan and $2 billion on General Electric wind turbines. Pickens hoped that once the wind farm was constructed, it would be the largest in the world.

          The plan collapsed after natural gas prices fell and selling wind power was no longer economically feasible. He lost $150 million of his personal fortune on the failed wind plan.

          http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/wind-investments-blow-pickens-off-the-forbes-400-list/

          Gee, I just cannot understand why T-Bone doesn’t like NG. 😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          “But, don’t get me started on fracking”

          Why not, you are hilarious.

          Dumb and Dumber have NOTHING on you !!!

      • Menicholas says:

        Is that all you got?

      • craigm350 says:

        I had an open mind that’s why I converted to Sceptic – that and I blew my nose and didn’t like the smell. I really did cry foul that liars and fraudsters had shown me polished turd after polished turd. I also notice you are playing games. Your debate skills are so route 101. Take a side issue go on and on about something irrelevant. Like I said the smell is the giveaway.

      • craigm350 says:

        I cried foul too when I finally saw through all the propaganda BS and Route 101 trolling in comments just in case people think for themselves. I am thankfully long out of the climate cult so can spot borg well. Seriously you debate like you learned everything in Communism for Dummies. The last person I saw debate like you and avoid the issues (just in case you were wondering it’s science not semantics we’re debating you seem confused) was an Islamist playing the victim card. They seem keen to get others to convert to their ideology too. It’s pretty clear you are just another shouty – you shout to prevent debate. You shout as you have no argument. You shout because you are an intolerant asshole like an islamist. You have no grasp of history and no grasp on your reality lest you wouldn’t come here to make a fool of yourself. G’day

  11. Michael 2 says:

    Are her initials J.M.?

  12. Michael 2 says:

    Anyway, it is clear to my that your journalist doesn’t realize that to a skeptic, a scientist getting “millions” from oil money is pennies compared to the “billions” warmists get from the governments of the world.

    I am delighted that there’s even a possibility of balance in this headlong rush to fear, uncertainty and doubt, the only cure for which is global socialism (which, by the way, is also the cure for everything else, not that this cure has actually worked anywhere it has been tried).

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…the only cure for which is global socialism (which, by the way, is also the cure for everything else, not that this cure has actually worked anywhere it has been tried).”

      Actually you have that wrong. They just upped it to Communism so forget wimpy socialism.
      UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

      I am not surprised that the Malthusian types prefer Communism. After all the Club of Rome thinks there are way too many humans on this planet. Totalitarian governments, mainly Communist murdered 169,202,000 of their own citizens in the 20th Century. I am sure that made people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong very happy.

      DEMOCIDE: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
      By R.J. Rummel

      … democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.

      61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
      35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
      20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
      10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
      2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
      2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
      1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
      1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
      1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
      1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
      1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
      1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea

      • Chewer says:

        It is the age old issue of some (approximately 4% or 4.8 folks of 122 types of human individuals) fearing their fellow man, the fears that do not allow them to sleep well at night due to man’s potential to destroy (or degrade) Gaia and their fellow man.
        The folks who now wield much of the world’s powers (because of their often voiced enlightened state-of-mind/superiority), take a good portion of the weaker followers (approximately 12%) and engrave their hot-iron cattle branding.
        This is nothing new, and has gone on for well over 35,000 years and will continue for quite some time 😉
        Nirvana is in the eye of the beholder, any many of them should be medicated instead of giving the reins to our planets societal discourse!

        • Hope says:

          … or .. it’s science. Scientists are going with the latter.
          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

        • gator69 says:

          You don’t vote for science dummy, it’s not a popularity contest.

        • AndyG55 says:

          OMG and then you PROVE your stupidity with the consensus farce..

          Seriously ?

        • talldave2 says:

          Anderegg was debunked years ago (even Steig was “appalled” by it), the methodology is silly. Naturally, government “scientists” are happy to use one failed scientific claim built on laughably arbitrary data sifting in order to promote another failed scientific claim built on laughably arbitrary data sifting. Nonsense built on nonsense.

          https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

          “In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.”:

          It would be strange if the 200 most prolific writers on a subject did not think the subject was valid, obviously you could find similar result for chiropractors, faith healing, acupuncture or other pseudosciences (some of which do have their own “scientific” journals).

      • Hope says:

        “Anyone who respects climate science is a commie socialist fascist statist who wants government to kill you” is the most boring of all the industry propaganda talking points.

        You think it looks clever … that’s the great irony.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You think it looks clever..????

          you would think “funniest home videos” looked clever !!

        • gator69 says:

          She thinks that fraud committed in the name of Gaia is clever. Staging burning tap water because they have no science to back their claims is AOK for Hopey.

          According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

          “… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

          Blatant fraud from her go-to guys! 😆

    • Hope says:

      “from oil money is pennies compared to the “billions” warmists get from the governments of the world.”

      One of my favorite industry talking points .. poorly regurgitated, but no matter.

      Can you cite your claim?

      Here are numbers on lobbying: $22 million v $175 million .. can you guess which is which?

      http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc/

      • gator69 says:

        I’ll see your 175 million and raise you 120 Billion…

        Governmental Waste: Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe claims the White House has frittered away billions on its environmental agenda — not smart, he says, when that money could be used for a real need, such as national defense.

        During a hearing last week on the Defense Department’s shrinking budget, Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had figured out how much the White House has wasted on environmental projects. What he came up with is not trivial.

        “In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda , mostly global warming, climate and that type of thing,” said Inhofe.”

        And who gets oil money?

        1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)

        2. Sierra Club

        3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

        4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)

        5. 350.org

        6. Union of Concerned Scientists

        7. University of California, Berkeley CalCAP,

        8. University of California, Berkeley UC

        9. Climate Institute

        10. EcoLiving

        11. Nature Conservancy Climate Change Threats and Impacts

        12. Nature Conservancy

        13. America’s WETLAND Foundation< !–

        14. Green Energy Futures

        15. World Resources Institute Climate WRI

        16. Purdue Solar Navitas

        17. AGU

        18. Science Museum

        19. Dr. Michael Mann

        20. Stanford University

        21. National Science Teachers Association

        22. Duke University

        23. Alberta Water Council

        24. University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation

        25. Washington Free Beacon

      • talldave2 says:

        It’s interesting you assume Exxon cares enough about AGW to “fight” legislation on it. Nearly all of Exxon’s lobbying efforts have nothing to do with climate change and are aimed at drilling access and tax policies.

        In any event, comparing oil and gas companies to environmental groups is pretty dumb. Environmental groups produce nothing and exist solely to lobby. Energy companies comprise 10% of the economy and are the primary reason millions of Americans have heat, cooling, transportation and food — they’re 10% of the economy. It would be a bizarre world in which environmental groups were larger than the energy sector.

  13. rah says:

    Tony, I think she secretly has the hots for you!

  14. darwin says:

    Since their decades of lies haven’t worked they’re now going after anyone who dares speak out against them … in full force.

    Stalinists, thugs and crackpots. All extremely dangerous.

    • Hope says:

      “Lies” is that your word for science? Well trained.

      Maybe you can answer the oft ignored question:

      “What’s your take on how all these scientists are faking a math based science .. yet are able to make the math add up across disciplines, contents and decades in the greatest cabal of gangster thug scientists ever known to science?

      How do they make all that fake math add up?”

      ??

      • gator69 says:

        Just like Orwell did in 1984. 2+2=5.

        You can say anything, but backing it up with facts is another issue.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You want fake?

        Go talk to the guys who wrote the models, and the guys that look after GISS !!

        And for Totally fake.. have a talk to Mickey Mann !!

      • nigelf says:

        Here’s an often ignored question I’d like answered Hope.
        There’s been no statistical warming for eighteen odd years now and scientific bodies admit that, yet we’re told things are still heating up and every storm is a signal of climate change.
        The question: What kind of conditions could we expect if the earth was cooling down?
        We’re told that warming causes cooling so would the opposite apply?

  15. annieoakley says:

    What in the hell is a polemic?

  16. Michael 2 says:

    The movie recommended by your journalist, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7FK2q2eJ4, has been viewed a little over 500 times since it was uploaded in May, 2011.

    Meanwhile, in 7 months the “50 Shades of Grey” movie preview has been viewed over 26 million times.

    But some climate skepticism: Other planets warming: 11,347 views

    The Great Global Warming Swindle Written and Directed by Martin Durkin Uploaded 5 April 2011, 8676 views

    Any way you slice it, global warming or global not-warming just doesn’t get much attention.

    It does get a lot of money.

  17. Michael 2 says:

    Whups, I intended only to post links. I forgot about WordPress automatically embedding the target if it starts a the beginning of a line. Oh well, makes it a little more convenient I suppose.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Maybe I just learned something… Link targets are embedded only when they are at the start of a line? If I post a Youtube address and it is NOT at the start of a line, only the link will appear, not the embedded video? Do I have that right?

      • Michael 2 says:

        “If I post a Youtube address and it is NOT at the start of a line, only the link will appear, not the embedded video? Do I have that right?”

        Yes. It might also have to be the only thing on that line, the link. Then it will embed.

  18. SMS says:

    This woman has her mind made up (in concrete) and nothing you are going to say will influence her one whit. Don’t waste your time. She does not care about truth or science, only her own religion.

    • Hope says:

      Science = religion … famed industry talking point propaganda.

      Would it be possible for YOU to respect climate science .. have an open mind??

      I asked Steve that, I’d say – tho he is a master prevaricator – the answer was no.

      • “It is my religion and my dharma.”

        Rajendra Pachauri

      • David A says:

        Hope, did you ever consider your mind may not be open?
        Most skeptics did not start out as skeptics. Steve / Tony told you his environmentalist background. You only answered it with snark. You ignore all statements of fact by skeptics with a repetitive trill of calling them denier talking points, thus excusing yourself from seeing if they are fact based. (making your self look foolish to anyone with an open mind who looks for the facts) Most often these skeptic taking points are facts. Your denying the fact that the world is round, does not make the world flat. I can make every skeptical argument solely on the basis of peer reviewed research, and national and international data graphs.

      • SMS says:

        Hope, why don’t you pick a subject on CAGW that you feel you can defend without question. It has to be warming that will cause “Catastrophic” problems though. Otherwise you are just another Luke warmer like most of us here. We are talking droughts never seen before, hurricanes that reach categories not even imagined, sea level rises that will flood all of Florida, and anything else you can think of that will impact all civilization in a very negative way.

        Like I said, you pick the subject and then defend it. Just like the Scientific Principle demands of scientists. But remember, it just takes only one counter data point to sink your defense. It only takes ONE. You are the one defending the theory, not the skeptics.

        If sea levels are not rising “catastrophically”, then the theory is kaput. If hurricanes are not at category 7’s and 8’s and in numbers never seen before, you theory is kaput. If there are droughts that come to an end, your theory is kaput. If there is still ice in the Arctic when none was predicted, your theory is kaput.

        Since your are defending the theory, you should be the one in the hot seat and not Tony. Tony should be questioning you and not the other way around. Man up and defend your theory.

      • Jl says:

        Whining that this or that is “an industry talking point” as you’ve done throughout this thread isn’t really doing anything except deflecting. Why not try and rebut the point? Or can’t you?

  19. NancyG says:

    I wouldn’t do an interview with her unless I had my own film crew to release the true version after her hatchet job. You know it’s going to be a smear job, she admitted as much. You cannot believe her even if she swears on a bible, and has a contract witnessed by a notary public. Lying is what they do best.

    • Hope says:

      Do you marvel at how this man has made you believe you know me?
      I do.
      You might reread his out of context, truncated posting of our emails… look again ….

      • AndyG55 says:

        No way I would want to know you..

        You are empty !!

      • NancyG says:

        I don’t know anything about you other than what you have shown of yourself. No misinterpretation, no manipulation by Tony, because you stated it yourself. Props to you for that much honesty at least. It’s understandable why someone would be wary and mistrustful of you since you stated your objective right up front.

        You said, “My nation deserves to have a real conversation about energy. ” But that’s a lie. A real conversation is opposing views discussing why they have reached the conclusions they have, a sharing of data and ideas. Your side only wants a discussion between themselves. There is no room for honest discussion according to your ilk, the science is settled, the consensus, and anyone that doesn’t follow the party line is identified, targeted, ostracized, attacked, and smeared through a collective effort. An independant thinker has to wonder why.

        Your big oil trope is old, do try to keep things fresh, you’re boring.

  20. Edmonton Al says:

    These whack jobs always forget the main thing about Mann-made global warming. They, being the Alarmists, made the claim that CO2, released by man burning fossil fuels is causing AGW. It is up to them to PROVE it. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove their claim.
    All of their attempts to prove Mann-made global warming, and hence climate change have failed.
    The only way they can claim that there is global warming is by data tampering, lying, using “secret” GCMs or whatever. They have no empirical proof. It is only because of the internet, social media, and weblogs, that the AGW claim has failed. Years back in the late 80s and early 90s, when asked if the science was true. The UN IPCC chiefs said; “It does not matter if the science is true. It only matters what people believe to be true”. That was before social media.
    If that is not political, then what is???

    • AndyG55 says:

      Well said , sir ! 🙂

    • Hope says:

      If science proved it for decades (how long greenhouse gas theory has been used) .. but the industry that did not want to lose their marketshare … bought a massive lie machine to brainwash voters .. that made voters unable to respect ANY evidence that debunked industry’s bough talking points … clearly no MANNER of proof would be enough for the brainwashed voters … empirical evidence to that is provided all over this page..

  21. Edmonton Al says:

    It is my view that Tony would annihilate her on any debate, done according to his conditions.

    • Hope says:

      I’m happy to live stream an interview. I have no doubt that if it gets any coverage, someone will record it and do post production on it – does that not occur to anyone here? Wow.

      • AndyG55 says:

        How are you planning to interrupt the streaming.?

        You do know that SG would totally thrash you in any real scientific debate…. don’t you.??

        Even you surely aren’t THAT ignorant.

        You have made it obvious that you have ZERO science in your childish knowledge.

        Unless of course you SCREECH so loud he can’t say a word.

        • Hope says:

          Oh .. I get it .. you guys don’t realize anyone can record a livestream … you should look into it. Your lack of knowledge is making you look silly.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep, that’s the plan .. SCHEECHING..

        Its all you have,

        Its all you are.

        FRIGHTBAT !!!

      • sunsettommy says:

        Hope, Steve has a lot computer skills, which I am sure is waaay above your level.

        This late in the thread, and still you didn’t say YES or NO to this:

        “I will only agree to the interview if you agree to use it only unedited and complete as taped live. No cutting pieces out and making hit pieces. That is dirty pool and I will have no part of it.”

        and,

        “I gave you the terms of the interview. Live, complete, unedited. No use of the media in any other form permitted. Do you agree to that, yes or no?”

        Still want to continue your evasive crap?

  22. Robert B says:

    “I gave you the terms of the interview. Live, complete, unedited. No use of the media in any other form permitted. Do you agree to that, yes or no?”

    Not really the way to debate science. “Just wait a minute. I have the plot here somewhere.”

    She could post comments that “destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease” and then tweet it.

  23. Edward. says:

    Merchant of dumb?

  24. Gail Combs says:

    I am glad you checked her out Tony.

    I am surprised she showed her true colors so quickly.

    Rosa Koire has also made sure she tapes the interviews she does and has a whole collection that show just how deceitful the MSM really is.
    VIDEO AND SMEAR ARTICLES
    Rosa is as left wing as you can get. She calls herself “a flaming Liberal” She is a California bureaucrat, a lesbian, a Vietnam protester and activist. The MSM should love her. Not true, she does not toe the line so she also gets smeared. It is actually pretty funny.

    Here’s the latest: Another media smear, this one in Fortune.com (Fortune 500/Time, Inc.) June 19, 2014. Fortune Magazine and David Morris have done a serious disservice to their readers by posting this biased propaganda piece. For the record, I am not funded by the Koch Brothers or ALEC or any other group or corporation and I am disgusted by the insinuation that I am. [Good grief they love to toss the Koch Brothers in every chance they get.]

    This article (click to read) is a nuanced manipulation that lies by omission and half-truths, and slimes by intent. David Morris, the author, brings in ICLEI public relations and the Southern Poverty Law Center to ‘balance’ the article, and then concludes that Agenda 21 is necessary to save the planet—it ‘requires some sacrifices, not all of them made entirely willingly’….

    -it ‘requires some sacrifices, not all of them made entirely willingly’…. What ever happen to the word FREEDOM?

  25. Gail Combs says:

    Tony, it occurs to me she may try and use ‘quotes’ out of context to smear you and this site as complete nut cases so you might want to keep this as your top post and make sure the contents here are copyrighted.

    • Shazaam says:

      In the words of “Cimon” http://antilop.cc/sr/exhibits/254631440-Silk-Road-Trial-Gx-227e.pdf

      23 14:58) cimon:
      Nobody has ever regretted not doing an interview; lots
      of folks have regretted doing one.

      No matter what, bring your own camera and recorder.

      Better yet, don’t do it. It’s a trap.

    • Hope says:

      ” … she may try and use ‘quotes’ out of context to smear you ”

      Can you find where I actually said this “”climate science is valid yes/no”” .. ?

      I didn’t. Steve misquoted me.

      The actual question is here:

      “I hear a ‘no’, as trained you will not be open to the idea that climate science is valid.

      Is that what I hear you saying, yes or no?”

      And he never answered .. just made up the fake quote to ‘smear’ me..

      • AndyG55 says:

        No need to smear you…
        …. you are doing an admirable job all by yourself.

      • gator69 says:

        How about fake videos? Hmmmm?

        According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

        “… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

        When do you plan an expose on Josh? 😆

        • Hope says:

          Finally a reply button!

          Not that ANY of this will stop you from repeating the industry talking point that Steve Lipsky is a fraud – but anyway:

          You saw the video of flaming water I posted .. I TOOK that video MYSELF OF Steve’s water. Please view it again and admit again, as I know you will, that it is a hoax:

          The ruling you refer to was not a ruling on the case (do you know what the case was about?) .. it was a ruling on procedure in an ANTI-SLAPP case. It did NOT find Steve GUILTY – the case has yet to be heard in a court: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/05/free-speech-case-springs-fracking-dispute/

          And the EPA’s IG ruled the science and the procedure were solid:
          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265117/-Breaking-Inspector-General-report-justifies-EPA-in-Parker-County-fracking-intervention

          THAT does NOT stop the Industry propaganda lie machine from telling YOU that “According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:”

          http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/17/backyard-flamethrowers-and-other-fracking-myths

          That is false. The judge ruled the case could go forward, he did not rule on the case itself. He also had to recuse himself from the case when he used the ruling to brag about his power over the EPA.
          http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php

          Riddle me this – who drilled Steve’s well and where did they testify that there was no methane in it when drilled?

          Do doubt you know the case .. but will go on stating Steve is a fraud .. as trained by the industry’s propaganda machine .. as I have said over and over here .. that’s about all well trained deniers do.

        • gator69 says:

          😆

          Do you read your links?

          The IG’s in-depth investigation findings:

          EPA was right to issue the order.
          Withdrawal reasons are unclear and questionable.

          The order was withdrawn. Period. Quit whining.

          And again, from your link…

          Sure, flames did shoot out of the end of the garden hose. But that’s because Lipsky attached the other end of the hose to a gas vent, not a water pipe.

          That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact, as concluded by Judge Trey Loftin, of the 43rd judicial district court that’s hearing the lawsuit between Lipsky and the fracking companies.

          The fraudster I illuminated was Josh fox of ‘Gasland’ fame. Don’t you feel stupid for supporting frauds?

          The flames you allegedly caught were ‘biogenic’ in origin. Or again, did you not bother to read the source material.

          Everything you posted has been refuted by the EPA and all serious observation.

          You are a liar and/or a fraud. You either know what you are posting is BS, or you are so dumb that you don’t.

          Which is it whack job?

        • Hope says:

          @gator69

          “Sure, flames did shoot out of the end of the garden hose. But that’s because Lipsky attached the other end of the hose to a gas vent, not a water pipe.

          That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact, as concluded by Judge Trey Loftin, of the 43rd judicial district court that’s hearing the lawsuit between Lipsky and the fracking companies.” YOU

          Again, as I have asked you repeatedly – please cite where and when this case was heard.

          It hasn’t BEEN heard – you are simply AGAIN – repeating the industry talking points that Range has made against Steve.

          No judge has found him guilty – If I demand you cite this 1K times you never will .. and you will go on repeating the erroneous talking points ( and leaving comments for which there is not reply button)

          So GO AHEAD and CITE when the case was HEARD ..

          …. the ruling you point to was a ruling on procedure – later an appeal found all the conspiracy charges to be baseless.

        • Michael 2 says:

          A typical well drilled in the Bakken foundation is 14,000 feet deep. It hardly matters what anyone pumps down there; what matters is what one gets OUT.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry sweety, but when your guys are caught committing fraud, they are relegated to a level below Bigfoot hunters.

          Bring me a credible source and we can talk. Until then you just citing known frauds and not worth our time.

  26. Tony is being too kind. Ms. Forpeace is way past being a “whack job.”

    She is in full blown insanity.

    Since it won’t reward her (she doesn’t have advertising on her site, so won’t get anything for the extra clicks), check out her Michael Moore wannabe “production company” website:

    http://akproductions.tv/

    You’ll get a better understanding of the state of mind of this pitiful wretch.

    Hint: here “Eco-Insanity” “production” consists of 41 YouTube videos linked to play consecutively. The first video is: Peak Oil: If you don’t get it watch this–$300 per barrel soon!”

  27. Gail Combs says:

    This is Hopey Changeys company:
    http://www.akproductions.tv/
    Dan Anton and John Feeney are her partners in crime.

    “Dan Anton” doesn’t yield much info. Possibly: http://es.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-garcía-antón/a5/594/b7a

    “John Feeney” hits the Jackpot: John Feeney, Ph.D., writes on underreported, often misunderstood ecological issues with profound implications for our future.
    And this:

    “It is of course not only our numbers which will come to an end. Civilization is made possible by agriculture. Agriculture is unsustainable. If it weren’t obvious already, you can see where this is going. There’s no predicting the timeline of civilization’s collapse. Techno-fixes and any resiliency industrial society possesses may draw it out. No matter, a better future, indeed the only future for humanity and the rest of Earth’s inhabitants is one beyond civilization. Whatever our course, we have only to consider the agricultural origins of our ecological crisis to understand civilization is an unsustainable trap. A collapse of civilization is inevitable and work with zest toward a shift to a tribal, wild way of living.” – Dr John Feeney

    Dr John Feeney is a prominent green campaigner who has written for the Guardian newspaper, the BBC, and many other Green journals and websites. He was the winner of the 2007 ECO award. In 2009 he received the Global Media award from the Population Institute for his work.
    http://junkscience.com/2012/02/03/nro-the-truth-about-fracking/

    So I think he may be our boy at AK Productions. Hopey Changey would be the grunt and the face.

    • emsnews says:

      As usual, good catch, Gail.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Notice that Hope,is silent here?

    • Hope says:

      Hilarious .. from the fourth grade mockery to the profoundly silly googling .. you are so far off it’s very entertaining ..

      • AndyG55 says:

        Your are so OFF (like a 3 week old stew), its hilarious.

        NOTHING to offer in the way of science.. ZERO.

        Just blind empty rhetoric.

        Please,

        find something, anything that even has a vague resemblance to science. !!

        • gator69 says:

          She has fake videos, and thinks that is science! 😆

          No really, I’m sure this ethical journalist is going to get to the bottom of those who look to deceive the public.

          According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

          “… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

          Josh Fox must be shaking in his boots knowing that Hopey is on the case! 😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          Hopeless NoPeace is certainly NOT someone I would chose to present the alarmist case.

          Ranting and raving loonies generally don’t have much of an impact. !

    • annieoakley says:

      Bravo!

  28. Disillusioned says:

    The propagandist strawperson serving up all the red herrings said, “I won’t be swayed….”

    She can’t be bothered with any facts that fly in the face of her agenda..

    The propagandist strawperson serving up all the red herrings said, “I’d advise you to run.”

    She is either so naive and ignorant that she doesn’t know she’s in deep water way over her head, or she does have a clue that she has bitten off much more than she can chew, and that is a bluff before she folds like a cheap suit.

  29. AndyG55 says:

    Pretty sure this creature is what Tim Blair would term a FRIGHTBAT !! 🙂

    Screeching and carrying on fit to blow a gusset !

    Where is a wind turbine when you need one !!

  30. Phlogiston says:

    Hope Foreplay is just a run-of-the-mill warmists fascist Cnut.

  31. omanuel says:

    Steven,

    This request for an interview confirms the success of your reporting. Do not change your course of action.

    As you know, the AGW campaign is led my talented propaganda artists. They have essentially all of the political and financial power of world leaders that collect taxes from the public.

    They lost the AGW debate, but cannot graciously accept defeat because the debate also revealed seventy years of deceit, initiated by CHAOS and FEAR in AUG-SEPT 1945 that frightened them into

    1. Forming the UN in OCT 1945, and
    2. Forbidding public knowledge of the energy that had destroyed Hiroshima:

    Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf

    They may not have intended to isolate society from the reality (truth, God) of creation, but that is exactly what happened!

    Click to access Sequel.pdf

    • Hope says:

      .. at least I’M talented ….

      It doesn’t occur to you at all that an entrenched power who desires to keep their marketshare even if science finds their product is dangerous .. has bought a propaganda machine to produce the talking points you now call reason and science?

      Nah.

      http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

      • gator69 says:

        The long and short of it is think tanks and activist groups supporting global warming restrictions raise and spend far more money than think tanks and activist groups opposing global warming restrictions. Global warming activists may think they are scoring short-term political points by lying and misleading the public about such funding, but their lies will certainly come back to haunt them. They always do.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/2/

      • JC says:

        Why is it that these people always bring up the Koch brothers, but never list the liberal money thrown around.
        Liberal money is good/clean. Conservative money is bad/dirty…
        This link is just about political donations. It does show the massive effort of liberals to put forth their agenda.

        https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

        • Gail Combs says:

          JC, they have to bring up the Koch brothers and Exon because, after decades of searching that is ALL they can come up with. While Skeptics can choose from a smorgasbord.

          Shell Oil
          B.P
          Enron
          G.E.
          Standard Oil (Rockefeller foundations)
          Maurice Strong,
          Al Gore,
          Ted Turner
          Mikhail Gorbachev
          Warren Buffet
          George Soros….

          Not to mention all the government money

          Tides is often used to do money laundering to break the money trail just as a Bermudan company used to money launder tens of millions of dollars to funneled anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States. Funds that originate in Russia. Funds involving Russian oil interests and members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. Even the New York Times carried an article: “Russian Money Suspected Behind Fracking Protests.” NATO’s Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark also said that Russia was secretly funding the anti-fracking movement. Foreign Policy has also written about “Russia’s Quiet War Against European Fracking.”

          GEE, maybe Hope is working for Russian oil interests since she is so anti-fracking….

      • Wendy says:

        Talented Hope? No, not really. According to YOUR link the “study” found that over 7 years there was 556.4 million dollars in supposed funding……which works out to just under 79.5 million dollars per year. That was M million, not B billion. That’s pretty piddley compared to government funding in the hundreds of BILLIONS per year! And BTW, how much did this researcher receive in funding (for a year) so that he could research this topic? Enquiring minds want to know.

  32. Chewer says:

    She’s not a she, that is for sure!
    He does have similarities to Anita Dunn and other, with the constant licking of lips (think medication), obtuse thoughts that lead one to think of bi-polar or even tri-polar disorders 😉
    Many of folks that have for years relied on prescribed medication, now feel that their savior and army have appeared and they no longer feel compelled to take their prescriptions!!!

    • Hope says:

      “She’s not a she, that is for sure!’

      I love how they have trained you to disparage opponents so much that you think you can divine that from an itty bitty icon of my face …. my son got a kick out of it .. if y’all just did a little real research, I’m not that hard to find the facts about.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You do enough to disparage yourself.

        You seriously are coming across as a totally brainwashed loonie !!

        And seriously, why would anyone want to find ta facts about you, a basic non-entity

        Are you really that lacking in self-confidence.. are you that down on yourself.???

        I would completely understand why.. the only thing you seem to have to offer the world is mindless ranting. !

  33. MrX says:

    You’re making her head explode. She thinks you’re a liar no matter what because you’re bringing down her strawman world that she’s made up for herself. So you have to be a liar right off the bat.

    Even so, I find weird how they have this irrational belief that oil companies would pay people to go against AGW. Maybe they can’t believe that they’re losing the PR war to a side that has zero funding. They can’t conceive of it. On top of that, they don’t realize that oil companies are energy companies. They don’t seem to make the link that they’ll sell any kind of energy, fossil fuel or green energy, as long as they can make a profit.

  34. Mike says:

    I detect an algorythm.
    “As long as industry trained talking points propagandists like yourself have a mike, that is impossible.”
    Then it will be impossible… because you’ll always have me.

  35. Tim Groves says:

    Tony’s research has obviously stuck a nerve somewhere in the Alarmosphere and he’s on a target list. They will attack, as Obama has clearly indicated they will attack their opponents on the climate issue, and the most likely form of attack at this stage would be a attacks on personal reputation.

    In these circumstances, it makes no sense for Tony to put himself at risk from a close encounter with someone as slippery and twisted as Hope appears to be, as the results could be traumatic. I hope he will treat this as the phishing expedition it is, and take evasive action as necessary.

    And Tony had better be on his guard and take reasonable precautions in the parking lot at Whole Foods too. Somehow I wouldn’t put it past Hope and friends to descend en masse to surround and confront their targets for coerced “public” interviews.

  36. Something is not right here.

    Steven Goddard calls someone I’ve never heard of a nut case and she rushes like a crazed hen to please him and prove it.

    The man is a warlock.

  37. Cornelius says:

    “I will destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease and broadcast it – much like Merchant of Doubt does with Moreno …”

    Didn’t they complain about warmist scientists regularly losing debates to Moreno?

    • sunsettommy says:

      DR. Singer, might Sue Naomi for Libel: Merchants of ‘smear’ movie slanders eminent Physicist Dr. Fred Singer – Singer Fires Back! “Dr. Singer: ‘I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail.’ ”

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/03/06/merchants-of-smear-movie-slanders-eminent-physicist-dr-fred-singer-singer-fires-back/

      • Hope says:

        Ohhh that was a good laugh …

        ” eminent Physicist Dr. Fred Singer”

        “In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on “junk science” intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[17]”

        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

        • sunsettommy says:

          Ohh yes, and he got sued before…..?

          By the way he sued and won for libel before and may have to sue Oreskes, to defend him name…. again.

          Here is his background since the early 1950’s,it is impressive:

          “1951: Design of early satellites
          Singer’s MOUSE satellite, which he designed in the early 1950s.[19]

          Singer was one of the first scientists to urge the launching of earth satellites for scientific observation during the 1950s.[20] In 1951 or 1952 he proposed the MOUSE (“Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite, Earth”), a 100 pounds (45 kg) satellite that would contain Geiger counters for measuring cosmic rays, photo cells for scanning the Earth, telemetry electronics for sending data back to Earth, a magnetic data storage device, and rudimentary solar energy cells. Although MOUSE never flew, the Baltimore News Post reported in 1957 that had Singer’s arguments about the need for satellites been heeded, the U.S. could have beaten Russia by launching the first earth satellite.[19] He also proposed (along with R. C. Wentworth) that satellite measurement of ultraviolet backscatter could be used as a method to measure atmospheric ozone profiles.[21] This technique was later used on early weather satellites.[22]”

          “1953: University of Maryland

          Singer moved back to the United States in 1953, where he took up an associate professorship in physics at the University of Maryland, and at the same time served as the director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics. Scheuering writes that his work involved conducting experiments on rockets and satellites, remote sensing, radiation belts, the magnetosphere, and meteorites. He developed a new method of launching rockets into space: firing them from a high-flying plane, both with and without a pilot. The Navy adopted the idea and Singer supervised the project. He received a White House Special Commendation from President Eisenhower in 1954 for his work.”

          “In November 1957 Singer and other scientists at the university successfully designed and fired three new “Oriole” rockets off the Virginia Capes. The rockets weighed less than 25 pounds (11 kg) and could be built for around $2000. Fired from a converted Navy LSM, they could reach an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m) and had a complete telemetry system to send back information on cosmic, ultraviolet and X-rays. Singer said that the firings placed “the exploration of outer space with high altitude rockets on the same basis, cost-wise and effort-wise, as low atmosphere measurements with weather balloons. From now on, we can fire thousands of these rockets all over the world with very little cost.”[24]

          In February 1958, when he was head of the cosmic ray group of the University of Maryland’s physics department, he was congratulated in a telegram to the president of the university from President Eisenhower for his work in satellite research.[25] In April 1958, he was appointed as a consultant to the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, which was preparing to hold hearings on President Eisenhower’s proposal for a new agency to handle space research, and a month later received the Ohio State University’s Distinguished Alumnus Award.[26] He became a full professor at Maryland in 1959, and was chosen that year by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce as one of the country’s ten outstanding young men.[27]

          In a January 1960 presentation to the American Physical Society, Singer sketched out his vision of what the environment around the earth might consist of, extending up to 40,000 miles (64,000 km) into space.[28] He became known for his early predictions about the properties of the electrical particles trapped around the earth, which were partly verified by later discoveries in satellite experiments. In December 1960, he suggested the existence of a shell of visible dust particles around the earth some 600 to 1,000 miles (1,600 km) in space, beyond which there was a layer of smaller particles, a micrometre or less in diameter, extending 2,000 to 4,000 miles (6,400 km).[29] In March 1961 Singer and another University of Maryland physicist, E. J. Opik, were given a $97,000 grant by NASA to conduct a three-year study of interplanetary gas and dust.[30]”

          “1962: National Weather Center and University of Miami

          In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[20] He stayed there until 1964. He told Time magazine in 1969 that he enjoyed moving around. “Each move gave me a completely new perspective,” he said. “If I had sat still, I’d probably still be measuring cosmic rays, the subject of my thesis at Princeton. That’s what happens to most scientists.”[37] When he stepped down as director he received a Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.”

          “1967: Department of Interior and EPA

          In 1967 he accepted the position of deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Department of the Interior, where he was in charge of water quality and research. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created on 1970, he became its deputy assistant administrator of policy.”

          “1971–1994 University of Virginia

          Singer accepted a professorship in Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia in 1971, a position he held until 1994, where he taught classes on environmental issues such as ozone depletion, acid rain, climate change, population growth, and public policy issues related to oil and energy. In 1987 he took up a two-year post as chief scientist at the Department of Transportation, and in 1989 joined the Institute of Space Science and Technology in Gainesville, Florida where he contributed to a paper on the results from the Interplanetary Dust Experiment using data from the Long Duration Exposure Facility satellite.[3][42] When he retired from Virginia in 1994, he became Distinguished Research Professor at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University until 2000.”

          “Consultancies

          Singer has worked as a consultant for several government agencies, including the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, the Government Accountability Office, the National Science Foundation, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Research Council, the Department of Defense Strategic Defense Initiative, Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel, and the Department of the Treasury. Other clients have included the states of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania. In the private sector he has worked for Mitre Corp., GE, Ford, General Motors; during the late 1970s Singer consulted with Exxon, Shell, Unocal Sun Oil, and ARCO on oil pricing; and Lockheed Martin, Martin–Marietta, McDonnell-Douglas, ANSER, and IBM on space research.[43] He has also advised the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, and Frontiers of Freedom.”

          One of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

      • Hope says:

        Did you not notice Singer was a tobacco apologist before he was a fossil fuels apologist?

        • gator69 says:

          Wow! So attacking scientists is your idea of science. No wonder you are so very confused. How do your credentials stack up against Dr Singer’s?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Dr Singer is a scientist.. you are obviously NOT !!

          He looks at real data.. pity you have never done this, otherwise your ignorance would not shine through.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The Hopeless one is dredging up every bit of out-dated propaganda smear she can find.

          That is her life, her reason for being.

        • sunsettommy says:

          I notice, that all you offer is personal attacks against a great scientist. You can’t dispute his many achievements, over the decades, in science and teaching, so you offer the gutter level, to cover over your very low science reasoning and literary skills.

        • SMS says:

          Singer was never a tobacco apologist. He hates smoking. His beef was with the methodology for determining if second hand smoke was harmful. Hope, you need to get past your own biases and dig a little deeper for the truth. You only scratch the surface in areas where you can find confirmation bias.

          Become a true scientist. Try to invalidate your own ideas. That is what a true scientist would do with his theory. You try to validate a theory by finding ways to invalidate it.

        • Jl says:

          Try attacking the man’s data, if you can, and not the man himself. That’s what real scientists do. In fact, it’s “settled science.”

    • Hope says:

      You clearly haven’t seen the moreno clip yet .. look it up!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Oh , I thought you didn’t like youtube as a reference.. fool !!! 🙂

        So funny !!!, so DUMB !!

      • gator69 says:

        Seen this?

        According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
        “… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

        Makes Morano look really good! 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Read your links idiot!

          On Tuesday, Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company was still reviewing the inspector general’s report. But he said the company agrees with the state’s finding that “Range’s activities did not cause or contribute to the long-standing matter of naturally occurring methane.”

          God you are stupid! 😆

        • Hope says:

          “gator69 says:
          March 8, 2015 at 9:28 pm

          Read your links idiot!

          On Tuesday, Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company was still reviewing the inspector general’s report. But he said the company agrees with the state’s finding that “Range’s activities did not cause or contribute to the long-standing matter of naturally occurring methane.”

          God you are stupid! :lol:”

          Yes .. so my position here is that y’all are trained to repeat industry talking points. The EPA’s IG stated that the isotopic testing was valid.

          You’ve seen the well itself …

          You’ve seen 2 scientists testify that it links the gas in Steve’;s well to nearby production gas ..

          .. yet you take the position of Range Resources .. so yes .. as trained you parrot the industry’s talking point.

          Thanks for making my point.

          You then likely believe someone could go for 5 years and not notice that much methane in their water, ad does Range and the TRRC.

          Yes?

        • gator69 says:

          I believe the EPA got it right.

  38. Hope says:

    Great fun …. I look forward to reading all of the industry talking points posted in reply. While I’d like to get back to all of you, I might not have time … busy working:



    • gator69 says:

      Even the EPA admits there has never been a case of contaminated drinking water.

      Not once.

      Quit lying.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Quit lying.”

        Its all they have.

        ZERO science.. doesn’t realise that the Frackgas film was a fraud and a mis-information put up..
        poor brain-washed little child that she is.

      • Hope says:

        You just looked at water contamination from fracking … even if you see the evidence with your won eyes .. you will still repeat the industry propaganda talking point:

        http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/

        • gator69 says:

          Test data supplied in the report measured the chemical make-up of both the gas found in Lipsky’s water and from two nearby gas production wells, called the Butler and the Teal. According to the Railroad Commission report ‘the evidence is insufficient’ to determine if the two samples match.

      • Hope says:

        You just SAW the water well .. why not look into the facts in Parker co and judge for yourself? Does it LOOK like a hoax to you?

        How did Steve get production gas from the Teal well to insert in HIS water well to fool EPAs isotopic testing? Riddle me that.

      • Hope says:

        (often there is no reply button for your comments)

        “Ask the judge sweety, he ruled it was a hoax. ”

        Please , can you CITE when this case was heard – THANKS and did you read the CITE about Loftin?

        You saw 2 scientists tell you the isotonic testing was a perfect match .. or did you not view the cite?

        The driller – Pecks well drilling testified under oath that no methane (esp not at that level) was in the water well when they drilled + the family used the well for 5 years w/ no issue.

        • gator69 says:

          I cited the statement from the judge, fraud.

          Same with Josh Fox in ‘Gasland’.

          Keep spreading the talking points, I enjoy knocking them down and making you look stupid.

        • Michael 2 says:

          By the way, thank you for still being here. I despise “drive by” trolls that vanish into the ethernet after taking a potshot at the regulars.

    • gator69 says:

      Steve Lipsky! 😆

      When Josh Fox released his movie “Gasland” in 2010, he made it clear from the very beginning that the iconic scene would be the “flaming faucet” from Weld County, Colorado. And why not? It coupled fears of water contamination with vivid imagery – which was exactly what Fox wanted to do with the film.

      In case you’ve forgotten, here’s that clip:

      The problem, though, is that two years before the release of Gasland, Colorado regulators had investigated that exact case, and determined hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas development had nothing to do with it. “There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well,” according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report.

      After Gasland was released, COGCC noted once again that the landowner’s water well “contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity.”

      The iconic scene on which Fox hinged the movie’s credibility (not to mention his own) was blatant and deliberate deception.

      Fast forward to 2013 and the release of Gasland Part II. The iconic scene in this film? A man in Parker County, Texas, lighting the end of a garden hose on fire, which the audience is supposed to believe is a result of gas drilling.

      Here’s that scene:

      There you go again, Josh.

      According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

      “…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

      http://energyindepth.org/national/the-continuing-fraud-of-gasland/

      😆

      • gator69 says:

        What? You are not going to comment on the fraud your heroes are committing?

        And you probably still ‘believe’. 😆

        • sunsettommy says:

          Hope has abandoned us.

        • Hope says:

          “I’m not the mistaken party. I showed you where fraud was committed by your heroes. Quit lying.”

          And I showed you that you had been lied to – the case has never been heard.

          So you contend the case of Range v Lipsky has been heard .. can you cite that??

        • gator69 says:

          The judged resolved the matter of fraud, the only thing pending is the BS lawsuit, which considering the plaintiff committed fraud is not likely to go anywhere.

      • Hope says:

        All you had to do was read the ‘more info’ in my video (cited) …. and you could have avoided this mistake.

  39. Jimmy Haigh says:

    How does “Hope” power her I pad and I phone? Fossil fuel derived energy? Another bloody green hypocrite.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep, Hopeless is TOTALLY reliant on coal and fossil fuel power to get through the day.

      So DUMB she just doesn’t realise it.

      Tell you what, frightbat, put up a wind sensor, and if the wind isn’t blowing turn off the power to your whole mansion.

      HIPPOCRIT !!!

      • AndyG55 says:

        So is her interview studio. Would NOT operate on just wind and solar. TOTALLY reliant on fossil fuel.
        Although I suppose she could use the intermittent supply to claim the interview wasn’t edited… much.

  40. KTM says:

    She says she only wants people to be open minded, but I guarantee she could not find 10 new items of information from this website and be open-minded enough herself to admit that they might actually be truthful and could contradict or undermine the orthodox global warming narrative.

    To claim that someone is a “misinformationist” sounds like an excuse to turn her brain off and ignore the voluminous information that Tony has contributed to the discussion, both from his own efforts and by digging up fascinating articles from news and science outlets of the past.

    I have heard several of the interviews Tony has done, and he did a spectacular job in each of them. I look forward to his next interview, but there is no reason for him to lower himself to someone so obviously prejudiced against him out of the gate.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I absolutely LOVE this ‘open-minded’ comment from Hope.

      “Yes .. so my position here is that y’all are trained to repeat industry talking points.”

      ROTFLMAO!

      A glacier could be sitting on Chicago and she would still claim we are “repeating industry talking points.”

      I really can not wait for the next glaciation to descend and start the cleansing of the gene pool. Glaciation generally boosts human brain size and humanity certainly need it.

      Since the stone age when nature ruthlessly wiped out the unfit the human brain has been shrinking. “..Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,”…”

      Oh, and Hope, I am very very serious about glaciation. It takes decades not centuries and is due now, actually it is over due by a couple centuries.

      Dr Ruddiman thinks glaciation is over due thanks to humans iterference. Ilya G. Usoskin of the Sodankyl ̈ Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit) and Habibullo Abdussamatov, a Russian astrophysicist who is head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, think it is because of the Grand Solar Maximum now ending.

      So, let me make sure I get this straight Hope, because this cannot be had both ways. If Dr. Ruddiman’s “early anthropogenic hypothesis” is correct, and the CO2/GHGs/etc./AGW hypothesis is correct, then removing said “climate security blanket” from the late Holocene atmosphere would favor glacial inception then, right? So glacial inception is to be preferred?

      A few papers to contemplate:

      A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

      However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

      Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
      Climate modelling studies show that a reduction in boreal summer insolation is the primary trigger for glacial inception, with CO2 playing a secondary role (Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004; Calov et al., 2009); reducing (increasing) CO2 concentrations shifts the inception threshold to higher (lower) insolation values (Berger et al., 1998; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005). A number of feedbacks and mechanisms (snow-albedo, ocean dynamics, equator-to-pole moisture transport, sea-ice-albedo, forest-albedo) combine synergistically to amplify glacial inception (e.g. Khodri et al., 2001; Crucifix and Loutre, 2002; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004; Calov et al., 2005).

      Below, we consider each inception in detail in relation to astronomical and CO2 changes….

      This lends support to climate modelling experiments that suggest that changes in obliquity dominate ice accumulation in high latitudes, while changes in the eccentricity-precession and CO2 radiative forcing have each about half the effect of the obliquity forcing (Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004)….

      A corollary of all this is that we should also be able to predict the duration of the current interglacial in the absence of anthropogenic interference. The phasing of precession and obliquity (precession minimum/insolation maximum at 11 kyr BP; obliquity maximum at 10 kyr BP) would point to a short duration, although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479Wm−2), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012).

      So both papers (and a heck of a lot of others) say glacial inception is probable if CO2 remains low. This is where our research dollars should be concentrated. CAGW is a non-issue for the next 65,000 years while the solar insolation continues to hover near glacial inception.

      The intellectual spectrum here is easy to sort out. One was either aware of this much larger late Holocene climate issue or one was not. You are either aware of them now or you will never be. The difference being that ignorance can be cured, but dumb, that’s forever……..

  41. Jerry Gorline says:

    Hi Steve, I think Hope has a crush on you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor Steve ! Unless he pokes his eardrums out he is in for a world of torture. !!

      Imagine putting up with this nagging frightbat for more than a few minutes !!. !!

  42. jbenton2013 says:

    Stay well away from this one folks, she’s a real bunny boiler.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Wow, a bunny boiler..

      That’s unusual, most alarmist are bird slicers and cookers.

      And don’t give a damn if forests are chopped up to make way for bird and bat slicers,

      or if China is totally polluted to make those slicers.

      They all live in inner city green ghettos, afterall !!

  43. markstoval says:

    I know you have been trained to believe they all lie … and I’m sorry you have fallen for such an obviously stupid industry talking point … but most of us still retain our respect for science. ~Hope

    I found this comment among the most illuminating. She claims skeptics “have been trained to believe” when we don’t rely on beliefs and resist training aka indoctrination. Skeptics use logic, observations, and the scientific method. On the other hand we have caught many of the true believers using propaganda techniques and going to training sessions at the NGOs.

    But the biggest “tell” is the continued use throughout the entire thread of the word “industry”. The lady seems to hate, with a passion that exceedeth all understanding, the industrial society that is the reason over 7 billion people can live on this planet. Despite the fact that the skeptics can’t get any money out of the large corporations to fight this utter madness that CO2 is a “poison” she brings out the old canard that we are rolling in industry given cash. Filth lucre!

    She ends by claiming a respect for science even as she is fighting the scientific method with all her being. A very famous American physicist, perhaps the best of the last 100 years, once said that when the data moved against your theory that you then had to drop your theory or modify your theory. Well, there has been no warming for over 18 years now even as China and India have pumped enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (God bless their money hungry little hearts)

    This Hope is not a liberal. She is a progressive. (and yes, there is a difference) She is entertaining — in the same way some people find entertainment in small auto accidents in the city.

    Note: “exceedth” is spelled correctly; it is an archaic word used on purpose.

  44. AndyG55 says:

    SG, I am so glad you have allowed Hopeless to post on this thread.

    Shows just how pathetic and worthless her scientific knowledge is.

    Its based purely and totally on propaganda lies and trivia..

    She has not posted ONE SINGLE piece of real science in her whole ranting on the forum

    Watch her run like a bunny if you have all the back-ups you need to stop her twisting and sliming your comments. .

  45. AndyG55 says:

    And yes, Hopeless… SG does have training in the climate industry.

    You, on the other hand, HAVE NONE !

    You are a non-scientific, ignorant hack !!

  46. Old Goat says:

    An “interview” with Hope, would be hopeless. Don’t bother.

  47. AndyG55 says:

    Hopeless No-peace says…….. “Someone WILL record it and edit it, obviously ”

    Yep… and there it is……… roflmao.

  48. markstoval says:

    Here is the interview that I think might be worth doing.

    Both parties pick a third party to moderate so that a question is asked and Steve has a chance to answer it in full. Then another question and so on.

    The interview is filmed by a group with no connection to either party. Hired pros in other words. The interview is streamed live and the raw film in the can is also turned over to both sides,

    We could get people on both sides to kick in a few dollars to help pay for the professional film crew.

    I would watch that interview.

    ~Mark

  49. richard says:

    Hmm, too much watching evil sci- fi films me thinks.

    The evil dastardly Zog – “You would never weather an interview with me. I will destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease and broadcast it – much like Merchant of Doubt does with Moreno – he will soon be exposed and relegated to the nearest street corner to scream his insanities..where he belongs”

  50. Eliza says:

    I would not touch this its obviously a trap. Poor ol WUWT got caught out by the BEST team as well as NOAA (re UHI issues).You are causing massive damage to the AGW cause keep it up. BTW if you look at the statistics very few mainstream are even slightly interested in AGW these days only the fanatics here (our side) and there (warmistas) reply to these and their postings, .mainstream aint even close, In fact the whole issue is just going to blow away over time.I don’t think anyone will even notice…..basically because the weather/climate ain’t changing and the youngies (who love AGW) are becoming oldies (who do not fall for the fraud) LOL

  51. A C Osborn says:

    I know it is easy to poke fun at such a shallow person, but I really feel sad for her if she actually believes what she is writing on here.
    She comes across as totally brainwashed and unable to even look at or understand actual scientific data.
    I wonder how she will rationalise it all when the climate continues to cool due to Cycle 24 and the AMO/PDO going negative.

    Of course if she doesn’t actually believe it then she is just another lying warmist attack dog trying to ridicule scientists and engineers who are trying to educate the general public with the truth and deserves to exposed for what she is.

    • Michael 2 says:

      A C Osborn “but I really feel sad for her if she actually believes what she is writing on here.”

      It is likely. Consider how many young women emigrate to Syria to marry ISIS terrorists, a number that should be zero. In lieu of the traditional belief mechanisms (church/religion) that gave moral direction to people’s need to belong; the rising generation is frequently unchurched but still has that instinct and desire to belong to something. Since “radical” is a lot more fun it tends to attract young affluent people that “feel” more than they “think”.

      • A C Osborn says:

        I agree, there was a young lady on UK TV News talking about politics and how she does NOT vote, instead she is an activist for Student rights and funding. She comes across all excited and competely brainless.

  52. sully says:

    What I find humorous is that soon these same people will have to start blaming Mother Earth for denying global warming as she is not co-operating with the warmunist dogma.

    • gator69 says:

      Gaia taking Big Oil money? What a whore!

      • rah says:

        Well gator, the hag disappeared after your total take down of her fracking contaminated water claims. Good job. I, had to get some sleep so missed when she actually started engaging, and from what I’ve read, I’m glad I did.

  53. darwin says:

    The question is … who’s funding Hope?

    Inquiring minds need to know.

    • gator69 says:

      Whack jobs don’t necessarily need funding. Hopey obviously suffers from SDS (Skeptic Derangement Syndrome) among many other maladies, and someone in such a mentally unstable condition is likely to go all James J Lee on people.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Communications

      This is another reason why these alarmist liars are not funny, they have crazy people following them, who believe their BS. And now a congressman puts out a skeptic hit list? Grijalva better hope none of those scientists have any mysterious accidents.

      • darwin says:

        Crazy or not, most of these little Stalinists are also very greedy. There’s billions out there in funding from the left … and they’re more than willing to pay crackpots, dishonest people and little Stalinists like our friend Hope to prevent the truth from getting to the masses.

        All the left needs is just a little more power and they won’t need people like Hope anymore. They’ll just send their goon squads out to silence critics permanently.

        There is nothing the left won’t do to advance it’s goals and enrich itself. Nothing.

        • omanuel says:

          There is nothing mentally deranged world leaders won’t do now, except admit the Sun controls Earth’s climate and their fate. They are powerless!

          If Hope fails to divert attention, they will incite religious violence, destroy ancient art, slaughter civilians, and/or kidnap school kids to divert attention.

  54. omanuel says:

    The AGW debate is over. Hopeless Hope is a diversion to direct attention away from the fact that you, Steven, embarrassed world leaders with facts as the solar core squirted a minimal number of powerful magnetic events through the photosphere (sunspots) in solar cycle #24 and thus destroyed the AGW fable.

  55. Shazaam says:

    Steve,

    I’d like to suggest you change the title of this post to name-of-so-called-journalist requests an interview, (using her real name w/ twit tag)

    That way, others that “Hopeless” attempts to interview may get a fair warning from Google.

    You don’t need to call her a whack-job. Her words and posts do a fine job of displaying that for the world to see!!!

    8)

  56. sully says:

    She really blinded me with science. (not) Perhaps she’s just a result/casualty of the current education system. Maybe she just needs a hug, and a “There, there. The worlds not ending Dear”

  57. baconman says:

    She say’s she’s from ‘Cali’, but did you see her teeth in that picture? Talk about 50 shades of gray. No self-respecting Californian would be proud to sport a smile that looks like it just got finished digging for grubs.

    • Hope says:

      Really? They look YELLOW to you? Hmmm

        • AndyG55 says:

          “MILF
          /mɪlf/
          noun
          informal
          noun: MILF; plural noun: MILFs
          a sexually attractive older woman, typically one who has children.”

          NOPE, not in the least….. !! Only in your own mind !!

        • Michael 2 says:

          Because of virus possibilities and a bit too much tracking, I disable “Flash” and also I have a local hosts file disabling my own access to facebook (and of course their trackers on any website) so unfortunately I do not and cannot follow Facebook links and your own website is invisible to me, being as it is entirely a flash movie (swf format).

        • MINF
          Mother’s I’d Never

        • AndyG55 says:

          Every time I scroll past that picture, I get this nauseous feeling, like when you accidentally tread on a cockroach !

        • Neal S says:

          I checked out the dontfrythefuture website, and as best as I can determine there is exactly ONE post there at this time. Using the search function for ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘the’, all yielded exactly one result and the same one each time. It was posted Sep 9, of last year, and none before and none after, and no comments either. I hardly understand why Hope bothered to post that.

          That she would post that weak pun on MILF indicates to me she has delusions of attractiveness. For me however, I find well working brains and a kind heart most important and I have yet to see much evidence of either in Hope.

      • Hope says:

        Y’all outta LOVE that ..sorry I can’t delete the double post ….

      • baconman says:

        Ummm, gray = yellow?? I think I see the problem. Is that picture from your room in the Napa State Hospital?

        • AndyG55 says:

          And bragging that she is a MILF…… seriously, how crass can you get !!! ??

          Maybe she is cougar, out hunting.. no takers here, I bet !!

          The USA ought to start a “frightbat of the year”…..

          Hopeless, if you want a good future for your children, you need to get rid of wind turbines and solar panels, children will not know what birds are.

          And then increase the atmospheric CO2 content so the biosphere an expand, and feed the world.

  58. Hugh K says:

    The Hope Challenge – I feel sorry for the Hopes of the world….or the Grubers of the world if you prefer. They are the ones that have the potential to personally benefit from this site more than skeptics. So I’m asking others to join me in making a contribution to Tony’s website today in honor of Hope Gruber, that other scientifically challenged people like Hope can benefit from the wisdom posted here.
    Thanks for the inspiration Hope!!!

  59. g2-9ed9acc685824c6663c51c5b093476cc says:

    “Love the ad hom” she says… AFTER she talks about “climate deniers” being paid shills and being “relegated to screaming their inanities on street corners where they belong.”

    Typical Leftard logic: “when you attack us you’re evil, because we are holy. When we attack YOU, it is holy and just because you are evil.”

    They define what it is to be Children of Lies.

    • Hope says:

      I’ve never said “paid shill” .. tho a few are .. it is true that the level of discourse utilized by well trained deniers should be relegated to street corners. As it is not – the clamor is effecting the national discussion on energy policy.

  60. RealOldOne2 says:

    HopeForpeace is known for her delusional claims that she can’t back up with evidence. She claims “the conservative Christian religion requires all deny climate science as a tenet of that religion.” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11337317/Was-2014-really-the-hottest-year-ever.html#comment-1800140097

    I repeatedly asked her to either provide a source to back up her claim or admit that she just made it up, but she refused, thus turning her “mistake” into a lie. “When a mistake is pointed out, but clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

    She is quite hypocritical too, demanding others cite a source, while she refuses to do so. “1. Never reply to me without citation. In your world it may be true because you said it, in the real world, we require citation.”http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/#comment-1892977450

    As others have pointed out, she is a nutjob and lives in her own little la-la land of unreality and delusion.

  61. This is Dope Foreskin’s million dollar question:

    “What’s your take on how all these scientists are faking a math based science .. yet are able to make the math add up across disciplines, contents and decades in the greatest cabal of gangster thug scientists ever known to science? How do they make all that fake math add up?”

    1. They are not scientists. They are environmentalists who call themselves scientists, the way chiropractors call themselves doctors.

    2. There is no math. I really can’t think of the math you are talking about. AGW = WAG is not math. (WAG means wild all guess, in case you don’t know)

    3. 97% of all chiropractors agree that scoliosis can be cured by cracking your back. And who is a greater expert on chiropractic than a chiropractor? 97% of the peer-reviewed papers in chiropractic journals agree. It’s science! It’s math based! Anybody who disagrees is funded by (insert paranoid funding source here)

  62. I would love to debate you, Hopeless. Click my name to see my webpage, and get a load of how you would come out after an interview with ME. I would destroy you, and love every minute of it.

    • Hope says:

      Darling: “Stupid things global warming alarmists say

      Extracted from http://www.hyzercreek.com/hoax.htm

      “Climate Scientists are stupid” fab industry propaganda … they thank you for your support!

      • baconman says:

        Hope,

        Since you are apparently the smartest one among us, could you explain to me your thoughts on changing actual data points? As a trained scientist, I can’t recall over the past 30 years of work and courses ever having heard someone say, “if you don’t like the data, then you can simply change it”. Have you heard differently or could you explain to the rest of us fools how that works?

      • baconman says:

        Or could you explain to me how the temperature in-filling process works and how it is justified? If I were to use this in practice, then I could simply measure the body temperature of someone 6 counties away to determine whether or not you yourself have a fever. Is this not an apt argument, and if not could you explain why?

      • Yeah, well, I wrote the web site it was extracted from, and yes, I thank myself for my support. Not a good reader are you?

        Industry propaganda? I wonder how the disc golf course industry profits from telling all you phoney scientists in the Causa Nausea how stupid you are.

        I am offended by people who call themselves scientists who actually never did, or could, pass a hard science course. Tell me, Hope Forajob, have you ever taken a freshman science course? Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Calculus? I would wager you were an art history major, or poly sci, no?

  63. Tom In Indy says:

    A Progressive goal is to divide and organize. Obama is a pro at it, a community organizer. Community organizers are like wolves. They target the marginally connected members of the herd and separate them along racial, ethnic, gender, income, environment, etc.

    Hope Forpeace and her ilk are pawns who help the newly organized Progressive collective perpetuate the division within the climate group. Al Sharpton and his fellow pawns work to maintain the racial divide. You get the idea. Progressives realize that if people are left to their own designs, they will find common ground. Compromise becomes possible and the Progressive collective dissolves.

    Consider climate. The common ground is that both warmists and skeptics agree that society is better off with cleaner air, water, etc. In fact, there are a number of environmental improvements that both sides would be willing to discuss and implement to a degree. Neither side would be completely satisfied, but the environment would be improved. The same argument can be made for common ground on racial, ethnic, income, etc issues. However, the Progressive Collective cannot achieve it’s socially engineered “utopia” if we find common ground as democrats and republicans.

    The question for my liberal friends is – At what point did you surrender your willingness to find common ground on issues and replace it with the ugly and divisive tactics of the Progressive Collective?

  64. Hope says:

    Friend – you are commenting on a piece about me called “what job of the day’ .. not very ‘common ground’ is it.

    I simply state the obvious, All the well trained denier side has are the talking points the fossil fuel industries propaganda machine provides them .. read down the page .. there is nearly nothing posited here that did not originate in that well funded content providing machine.

    “A Progressive goal is to divide and organize.”

    Yet conservative media calls all liberals God and America hating commies-socialist-fascts-statists who hope to destroy this country, but love Islam …. do you find their propaganda “divisive”?

    Think Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, Colter et al.

    As for the divisive disparaging of environmentalists – think “Watermelons” by Dellingpolle …. and just read up!

    • Hope says:

      (Sad the editing function here is nonexistent obviously “Whack Job of the Day” was the title of the deep and important article.)

      • Tom Indy says:

        I make plenty of typos, so no problem.

        We all have a problem with using language that divides us. Progressives have turned it into a science. They use it as part of a strategy to produce worker bees to bring converts and money back to the hive. Ingenious really.

        However, the Progressive path leads to anarchy, chaos and ultimately an all-powerful state necessary to crush the anarchy. The society that emerges will be little more than a feudal system. Wealth will have been concentrated in the elite and their cronies.

        The best way to counter your attack on society is for everyone to find common ground.

        Another example – There are cleaner energy sources than coal. Alarmists want to eliminate coal as an input in the production of electricity. However, the cost of eliminating coal falls on the poorest in the world. There are technologies that that increase the cost of using coal as a source of energy, but not so much as to price it out of energy equation. Society is better off if coal remains a significant source of energy, but it can be a “cleaner” coal. Again, common ground, simple solutions.

        We should all make a habit of calling out those who use divisive rhetoric. Divisiveness only serves its Progressive handlers.

    • gator69 says:

      Katharine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian, and married to a preacher.

      You are truly unhinged.

      • Hope says:

        Yes, I defended her as a fabulous person … did you miss that?

        • gator69 says:

          You said…

          “Yet conservative media calls all liberals God and America hating commies…

          To whom are you referring? Because we call Katie a Christian.

          Didn’t you say earlier that Christians preach against the belief of climate change?

          Check your dosage, there appears to be a problem.

    • darwin says:

      Nothing the AGW proponents predicted over the last forty years has come true. Nothing.

      They make a prediction and when the opposite happens they claim it’s because of global warming.

      Billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled to pro-AGW groups. Zero tax dollars go to people who question the validity of claims that never come true, and the models that failed spectacularly.

      Yet you believe. You don’t know … you just believe. It’s like a religion to you. You have faith that even though nothing predicted has come to pass, it will one day.

      Lastly, your entire life, human civilization, revolves around cheap abundant energy. Your entire life revolves around fossil fuels and the products made from and by fossil fuels. Your home, your car, your clothes, your phone, your TV, your computer and last but not least the food you eat.

      If you want to kill billions of people (which the left does) and throw civilization back hundreds of years and really destroy the ecosystem, get rid of fossil fuels.

      • Hope says:

        “If you want to kill billions of people (which the left does) and throw civilization back hundreds of years and really destroy the ecosystem, get rid of fossil fuels.”

        This one is generally brought to you by Phelim Mcaleer – though many deniers include it in their schtick:

        • Sean Cash says:

          And yet you are using fossil fuels right now.
          So either you are wrong or a hypocrite.

          Oh and be careful what you eat… fossil fuels were used
          and drink
          and drive
          and wear

          its endless

        • darwin says:

          Again, nothing predicted has come true yet you still want to believe … why?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “And yet you are using fossil fuels right now.”

          Not just using fossil fuels.. she is ABSOLUTELY dependant on them.

          I wonder what type of SUV she drives. !

        • Michael 2 says:

          Hope, responding to “If you want to kill billions of people (which the left does) and throw civilization back hundreds of years and really destroy the ecosystem, get rid of fossil fuels.”

          then says: “This one is generally brought to you by Phelim Mcaleer – though many deniers include it in their schtick”

          I have not heard of Phelim Mcaleer but I notice that you do not deny the assertion. Is it your opinion that the leaders of the left typically favor a much smaller population of human beings on Earth? It seems clear enough to me. Of course the leaders of the left vary considerably in how to achieve it.

          The mechanism of the claim seems simple. Without oil, people will burn wood for fuel until it is gone, a thing that has happened in many places, Iceland for instance. When the oil is gone, people will return to burning wood for fuel, as appears already to be the case in England.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” Is it your opinion that the leaders of the left typically favour a much smaller population of human beings on Earth?”

          If they want a reduced population…let them “go” first..

          then I’ll decide if I want to follow. 😉

      • AndyG55 says:

        How true that is.

        CO2 is the building block of ALL life on Earth, and it has been in very short supply for hundreds of thousands of years.

        The planet’s biosphere is just starting to respond to the small increase of CO2 over the last few decades, but we really are still right at the low level of CO2 over the whole of the planet’s existence. A real greenhouse uses around 1000 -1200 ppm which seems to return the best extra growth for cost. (according to a good friend who grows greenhouse veg for market).

        Demonising CO2 and wanting to actually decrease the atmospheric levels is probably THE MOST STUPID THING even suggested by humans.

  65. Hope says:

    What you have here listed is one fossil fuel industry talking point after another.

    All of these opinions y’all seem to think are yours, were provided to you from Heartland Institute, right here on Tony’s blog, Watts up – a slew of trained industry propaganda content providers – conservative media as a whole being the largest outlet – they provide you with your pre-packaged fossil fuel industry talking points, you then tweak them maybe a bit – or repeat them verbatim.

    In a bit we’ll do a piece listing each .. as of now we are a bit busy:
    http://fracknationreview.blogspot.com/

    • gator69 says:

      No, you’re a bit dizzy. 😆

      Posting links that disagree with your statements, and supporting provable and known frauds.

      You’re awesome! 😆

    • Hopeless,

      Are you aware that there is a shibboleth of terms used by the Causa Naustra that, if used, only shows the user to be one of the useful idiots?

      1. talking points
      2. conspiracy theory
      3. unprecedented
      4. unequivocal
      5. 97% or any other use of 97
      6. tobacco companies
      7. oil companies
      8. Mention of the Koch brothers or however you spell their name
      9.

    • Jl says:

      Again, try rebutting the “industry talking points”, instead of just saying “they’re industry talking points.” Shouldn’t be too hard if you have the facts.

    • NancyG says:

      Ahahahahahaha!

      It’s best to just point and laugh at people like her.

    • BruceC says:

      What the hell is a trained industry propaganda content provider? Are they included in the list below? Can you provide us with a citation of trained industry propaganda content providers that provide/sponsor or grant anywhere near the amount shown below?

      Environmental Defence Fund – $111,915,138
      Natural Resources Defence Council – $98,701,707
      Sierra Club – $97,757,678
      National Audubon Society – $96,206,883
      National Wildlife Federation – $84,725,518
      Sierra Club Foundation – $47,163,599
      Greenpeace USA – $32,791,149
      National Parks Conservation Association – $25,782,975
      The Wilderness Society – $24,862,909
      Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection – $19,150,215
      Greenpeace Fund – $12,878,777

      Total = $651,936,548

      Note: This list does not include the $225 million sponsor donations given to the Stanford University – Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) of which $100 million comes from ExxonMobil and $50 million comes from Schlumberger.

      http://web.archive.org/web/20110720050139/http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html

    • Michael 2 says:

      Hope, stating the obvious, says: “All of these opinions y’all seem to think are yours, were provided to you from Heartland Institute, right here on Tony’s blog, Watts up”

      I am grateful to Anthony Watts and delighted with the existence of his blog. It appears not to have an axe to grind, publishes several interesting articles essentially every day and keeps me informed on many climate relevant topics. And yes, I have also followed his antagonizers to varying degrees as a way to calibrate what is important because that is what will be argued although lately it has dwindled a bit into arguing whether “their” is acceptable as a third person singular genderless pronoun.

      At any rate, you have it a bit backwards. Heartland Institute does not provide things; interested citizens and scientists provide things to Heartland Institute which then acts, I suppose, like a clearing house or brokerage. But WUWT seems to do a better job of actually getting stuff out there. You give the tiny Heartland Institute way too much credit!

      So far not a single idea that you have offered appears to be yours. Where you are unique is your willingness to come into the lions den and do battle. It was getting a bit slow around here so I hope you’ll stay a while.

      • You hope she stays? She provides no science and no arguments, except the pathetic drivel about “oil company talking points”. She’s nothing but a cretin and needs to git.

        • A C Osborn says:

          Oh come on it is the most fun the majority of posters have had for years.
          Very sad, pathetic and ignorant but a lot of laughs.

        • Morgan, making fun of arrogant cretins is a guilty pleasure but a pleasure nonetheless. We are all sinners.

        • Michael 2 says:

          Morgan says “You hope she stays?”

          Yes. It is not often one gets either this much activity or an opportunity to argue with a True Believing Warmist. Have this argument on one of their blogs and poof, you’re gone. But the argument does need to happen somewhere. Might as well be here.

  66. Sean Cash says:

    Im curious.. how does she power her computer and transportation?

    • darwin says:

      Hope should try to live fossil fuel free for a year.

      For starters, she’d have to get rid of everything she has and build her own shelter using hand tools that were forged using solar or wind only, make her own clothes, grow her own food and treat her own water and waste.

      No phones, no computers, no snacks, no TV … can’t even use candles.

      • Sean Cash says:

        Reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where a billionaire was trying to bring about the end of civilization so man can get back to his roots and closer to nature.

        Long story short.. they caught him.. and gave him and his followers their wish… and dumped them off in the middle of the forest… never to be heard from again.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I hope she can nap flint and gut a deer.

  67. Sean Cash says:

    “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) 2002-2015

  68. Dope,

    I hope you are enjoying your 15 minutes of lame, but I should point out that we aren’t talking to you because we like you. We think you are as lovable as an emesis bowl.

  69. stpaulchuck says:

    tell the skank to take a hike. Her seven readers of her juvenile screed are not worth your time

  70. annieoakley says:

    Wow this thread is 24 hours old.

  71. BruceC says:

    Go easy on her guy’s and gal’s – for all we know it could be an assignment she has to complete for John Cook’s Climate Denial 101 class.

  72. William Dugan says:

    Hope never mind trying to get a the dirty oil industry and at Steven how much you getting paid to spread the belief in mystery global warming scam were NASA only coming out and openly saying the globe is cooling it’s you and others in for making money of the poorest in are society and towards climate genocide I was working few years ago in London were I was helping in the building of a super under ground Bunker for government and scientists because of the cooling phase in are climate has started you just a poppet in a political game to reduce population Steven is right in everything he is saying him and few brave others out there some of greatest minds in climate science decided to speak in the greatest fraud in science to date what you and others strongly support Hope if you have any smartness left open your mind more like government is laughing at you and other morons they brain washed for there own agenda towards population control when they are finished they fuck you out like a toy

  73. Gail Combs says:

    Let’s Take a quick look at IPCC.

    Robert Watson was working for the World Bank while IPCC chair, Ged Davis was lead scientist for scenarios. Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. So Ged Davis, a Shell Oil VP, wrote the Sustainability Scenario for the IPCC to push Shell Oil’s natural gas. Take a look at “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis

    (Hope tries to say the Climategate e-mails were faked when Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written ‘some pretty awful emails’ )

    To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
    “…The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”

    No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.

    Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank.

    Too bad Hope can not open her eyes and see she has been scammed big time by the oil companies.

    I doubt Hope even knows what ‘the broken window fallacy’ is!

    • gator69 says:

      “Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’

      He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

      And <b<he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research“.

      What the Hell does Phil Jones think peer review is? Without disclosing data and methods, you are little more than a magician.

      We now know Jones is no scientist, and it’s no wonder that he considered suicide, he thought the jig was up.

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Hope says: @ March 8, 2015 at 6:40 am

    “Anyone who respects climate science is a commie socialist fascist statist who wants government to kill you” is the most boring of all the industry propaganda talking points…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Gee Hope why don’t you tell that to United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres who came right out and said “democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.”

    Or tell it to Maurice Strong or to Pascal Lamy?

    ……

    And what the heck does ‘Respect’ have to do with science? You respect a priest you ARGUE with a scientist. At work I did it all the time. It was part of my job as lab manager to analyze the work of other scientists and pick out the flaws. One company went so far as to gather us in an auditorium near the end of a project. A scientist would present his work and then it was open season as the rest of us tore the work apart. THAT is how true science is done. Hiding data, suing other scientists and saying there is a ‘Consensus’ saying the ‘science is settle’ is NOT SCIENCE!

    Why ever do people think trotting out the word ‘science’ makes something automatically true?

    Heck ~90 to 95 % of the peer reviewed scientific papers later turn out to be false!

    Go read these Hope: Then you might have an inkling as to why the people here, mostly scientists and engineers, find you confusing and confused.
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    Abstract
    There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question….

    Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof….

    US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds

    Date:November 17, 2010
    Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal
    Summary: US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies.

    In plain language the following peer-reviewed paper looks at several studies. The composite result:
    Scientists admitting they cheated – 1.97%
    Scientists who saw other scientists cheating – 33.7%
    Scientists who saw questionable research practices – 72%
    The authors then say that due to the sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    Abstract

    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

    To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    The FDA Underreports Scientific Misconduct In Peer-Reviewed Articles: The Benefits Of Negative Science

    A new JAMA study found the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is silent on matters of scientific misconduct and fraud.

    Researchers reported in at least 57 clinical trials, the FDA found evidence of one or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, problems with adverse events reporting, protocol violations, inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, failure to protect the safety of patients or issues with informed consent. Yet, only three of the 78 publications that resulted from these trials made note of this. There were largely no corrections, retractions, or listed concerns….

    Actual paper: Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration

    • Gail Combs says:

      You can add to these above list:
      SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted
      AND
      Dr. No Money: The Broken Science Funding System

      …Most scientists finance their laboratories (and often even their own salaries) by applying to government agencies and private foundations for grants. The process has become a major time sink. In 2007 a U.S. government study found that university faculty members spend about 40 percent of their research time navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth, and the situation is no better in Europe. An experimental physicist at Columbia University says he once calculated that some grants he was seeking had a net negative value: they would not even pay for the time that applicants and peer reviewers spent on them.

      A vicious cycle has developed. With more and more people applying for each grant, an individual’s chances of winning decrease, so scientists must submit ever more proposals to stay even. Between 1997 and 2006 the National Science Foundation found that the average applicant had to submit 30 percent more proposals to garner the same number of awards. Younger scientists are especially hard-pressed: the success rate for first-time National Science Foundation applications fell from 22 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2006.

      Not only does the current system make inefficient use of scientists’ time, it discourages precisely the kind of research that can most advance our knowledge. Many politicians go so far as to accuse scientists—particularly in politically contentious areas such as climate science—of cooking data to win government grants. They have yet to produce any evidence to support these claims, however. The real problem is more subtle. Inundated with proposals, agencies tend to favor worthy but incremental research over risky but potentially transformative work….

      The real problem is more subtle. Inundated with proposals, agencies tend to favor worthy but incremental research over risky but potentially transformative work….

      This is no surprise and was first published years ago in 1980 as a paper: Bafflegab Pays by J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania. It was even written up as an article by Dick Pothier in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982.

      Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals

      If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School: Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose.

      Armstrong, who is the editor of a new research publication called the Journal of Forecasting, offered the advice in a serious, scholarly article last month in the journal’s first issue. He said yesterday that he had studied the publication process in research journals for years.

      “Although these rules clearly run counter to the goal of contributing to scientific knowledge — the professed goal of academic journals — they do increase a paper’s chance of being published,” Armstrong said….

  75. talldave2 says:

    ” I can easily cite millions made by oil paid denier scientists.”

    The delusion of these people in incredible.

    • Gail Combs says:

      She uses Scientific American?

      Hope READ THIS:
      http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Who-Turned-Scientific-Amer-by-j-dial-Bees_Biotechnology_Environment_Glyphosate-131016-976.html#14259199754231&action=collapse_widget&id=6317355

      Who now owns Scientific American?
      Scientific American was sold in 1986 and is now owned by Holtzbrinck Group of companies. Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH is the holding company for Germany’s fourth largest publishing and media conglomerate. More than 80 companies active in the fields of book publishing, magazine and newspaper publishing, book printing, and new media belong to the group. Georg von Holtzbrinck, the founder of the publishing group, was born in 1909 and joined the Nazi Party in 1931.

      In 1931, he joined the Nazi Party’s National Socialist German Students’ League (NSDStB)….

      the NSDStB was anything but harmless, Garke-Rothbart wrote. Nazi student organizations were banned at the University of Cologne at the beginning of the 1930s for baiting Jewish students and unpopular professors. Riots and assaults on Jews that had to be quelled by the police were not unusual.

      Holtzbrinck must have known what he was getting into. Contrary to the placating representations of the postwar period, the NSDStB required a “high degree of political commitment” from its members, according to Siegfried Lokatis, a historian at Leipzig University…..
      http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=1646

  76. talldave2 says:

    I’ll just leave this here in the Hope that someone finds it useful.

    “In fact I can define science in another way: science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” — Richard Feynman

    Much of the weight of AGW arguments rests on the authority of the major climate institutes, but those same institutions were once quite confident global cooling was a serious problem. Here’s the most comprehensive list (as of yet) of articles claiming global cooling is a serious problem, citing director-level climate scientists at institutions like NASA, CRU, NOAA, NCAR etc: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

    And in fact, as late as 1990, the IPCC did not find any global warming signal. In 1995, IPCC scientists concluded in their drafts in five separate places that human influence was not discernible (some dispute this claim with nonresponsive anecdotes, but no one disputes the actual drafts included those five statements) but these caveats were removed from the final draft. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/1990-ipcc-report-showed-no-global-warming-for-the-past-700-years/ http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/E042_Global-2.htm

    Here’s a pretty comprehensive debunking of the “97% of scientists believe global warming is dangerous” claims (note Legates 2013 and Storch 2010 are cited, see also Tol 2014): http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

    The scientific method tests theories by their predictions. Here’s the most comprehensive list of failed climate predictions. Note that some of these are arguably not yet falsified, or made offhand, and a lot are local/regional, but there’s still plenty of embarassment and falsification to go ’round: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

    Here’s a number of posts about the highly questionable handling of GISS data. Note that despite Gavin claiming GISS is accurate to .1 degrees, most (if not all) past temperatures have been changed by more than that since he said that: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/ http://junkscience.com/2012/07/12/steven-goddard-the-odds-of-the-ushcn-adjustments-being-correct-one-out-of-infinity/

    Here’s some classic examples of how badly the models (that are the basis for policy recommendations) have failed — they do not outperform random walks, and the older they are the more they predicted too much warming: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/14/climate-models-outperformed-by-random-walks/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/

    Here’s evidence for the very strong consensus that warming in the likely ranges is net beneficial, something that was uncontroversial until recently. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-probable-net-benefits-of-climate-change-till-2080.aspx

    And last but not least, here’s about 1400 more peer-reviewed papers that all suggest AGW will not be all that serious a problem. Note that some of these are impact studies. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPEAK IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU CANNOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD.” — KARL POPPER

  77. Don says:

    Hope, if you are still tracking comments, I have a question: Why Tony?

    There are a lot of sites out there that have owners who do not mix in as much politics as Tony does with their posts. Thinking back to sites I have looked at this year, there is everything from Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Jim Steele to historical record researchers like Paul Homewood in the UK. Pierre Gosselin and Joanne Nova are also overseas, but probably wouldn’t be as adversarial as some in the US. Another aggregator site that I find fascinating is Robert Felix’s Ice Age Now.

    But, I doubt any of them get money from fossil fuel interests if that is one of your qualifiers.

    p.s. I think you have a great smile. I make too many visits to the periodontist, so mine not near as good.

  78. Dave N says:

    Assuming that the conversation was unedited: she accuses you of ad-homs after your second last reply, when you talked only about yourself. Presumably she’s accusing you of calling yourself names?

    The fact she didn’t want to agree to the simplest request of no editing speaks volumes.

    • Gail Combs says:

      This is really weird too:
      “…I hear a ‘no’, as trained you will not be open to the idea that climate science is valid. Is that what I hear you saying, yes or no?….”

      “..As trained?” What does she think we are circus animals?

      She certainly has done ZERO research on Steve Goddard.
      A simple one minute or less search would have turned up this:
      Greenhouse Gas Theory Is Very Simple

      or this:
      Dear Utterly Clueless Greenhouse Gas Skeptics and the spirited discussion that went on for days.

      A true journalist researches his subject. In this day it is trivial to get a feel for the person you wish to interview especially if [s]he has a website. This lazy …. didn’t bother since a real interview was never her objective. Her objective was to produce the worst smear vid she could. The fact she was not willing to have an actual open interview clinches it.

  79. Gail Combs says:

    Looks like Hope is gone for good. She is probably trying to find another skeptic blogger to trap into an ‘interview’.

  80. rah says:

    Well it’s good thing. I think we were running out of insults. Not that she didn’t deserve them. She demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of weather or climate processes and could not even admit that increased carbon dioxide results in increased greening. Steve certainly named the post correctly except she lasted more than a day.

    • Disillusioned says:

      She doesn’t know, nor care about science. Her claims to be concerned about science come up empty. She uses the term (very transparently) as a weapon against people who truly are concerned and knowledgeable) about the science.

      It has nothing to do with the physics related to carbon dioxide, GHGs, radiative forcing, positive/negative feedbacks, etc. Carbon pollution, climate change, global warming, Big Oil, science denier, etc, they are just buzz words to further their emotional agenda. She’s an anti-fracking activist, afraid we’re irrevocably polluting water tables, and she has swallowed all the propaganda hook, line and sinker. A rational discussion of the facts with these types is impossible. Sadly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s