• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ClimateGate - A great new Website

Deetee said:
So I take it that from now on you will only ever quote John Houghton in the following manner, here and on every other internet forum, in full and without bits removed from the quotation:
Click to expand...

So the guy that said this:
"There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.
​
Was "correcting" what he said when he said this:

"If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there has been an accident".
​
Also announced this disaster:

Rises in seas levels will displace millions of people. It's estimated there will be 150 million refugees by 2050, homeless as a result of global warming
​
And announced this one:

The impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a 'weapon of mass destruction.'
​
Doing a bit of announcing, hey?
 
Do you have a source for the quote you presented, or do you agree that the quote you presented is inaccurate?
 
mhaze said:
Also announced this disaster:
Rises in seas levels will displace millions of people. It's estimated there will be 150 million refugees by 2050, homeless as a result of global warming
​
And announced this one:
The impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a 'weapon of mass destruction.'
​
Doing a bit of announcing, hey?
Click to expand...
Since you've already been caught fabricating a quote; you wouldn't mind if you furnished the PRIMARY source for these quotes?
 
Unfortunately, there's a lot to pick at as far as stupid statements go on the part of certain AGW supporters:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

( Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989)

Face it, we've (AGW believers) been doomed by the Al Gores of the world who talk without thinking, giving critics loads of ammo to use. There needs to be a vigorous weeding out of the most strident global warming acolytes and they need to be replaced with honest science.
 
mhaze said:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/02/sir-john-houghton-is-liar.html#more

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf

Wording is slightly different - meaning is the same.

"If we want to have a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster....the only way humans will act is if there has been an accident".

And so the (manufactured) climate disasters commenced. ALL HAIL THE GORACLE!
Click to expand...

The meanings are completely different. The first 'quote' implies the scientists will manufacture a disaster, the other is an observation on human nature. It's true, people will usually not change their behaviour until they have no choice. That's certainly the case now. I have no idea what Al Gore has to do with the topic. You really need to get a grip.
 
Megalodon said:
Since mhaze is online...



So you admit you're quote was fabricated?
Click to expand...

I know this is venturing off-topic, but it does segue from the progress in this thread.

One of the things I was thinking about overnight was whether self-contained online communities like JREF Forums would be able to build an eBay-like rating system. A formula that would include inputs like total postings, positive vs negative ratings of individual postings, scores from other posters. That sort of thing.

I don't think vBulletin supports this, but it'd be worthwhile investigating the potential of a user ratings plugin.

The reality is that I don't post in all the threads I read. Some of them are about topics I have no expertise in. What I can do, however, is recognize that sometimes a poster is just... terrible. Is the poster simply having a bad day? It'd be nice to know what others think to see if I'm getting an objective impression.
 
Megalodon said:
Maybe you'll be the first one that provides a primary source for that quote. Because Sir John denies ever saying or writing it.



Considering the kind of lies you spread, why would anyone side with you?

Of course, you can embarrass me by providing a primary source for that quote.
Click to expand...

Sir John Houghton

"If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster."
Does he deny saying this too?


eta.

Darnit!
Shoulda read the whole thread first. :)
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The meanings are completely different. The first 'quote' implies the scientists will manufacture a disaster, the other is an observation on human nature. It's true, people will usually not change their behaviour until they have no choice. That's certainly the case now. I have no idea what Al Gore has to do with the topic. You really need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

Notice how close this comes to an argument from consequences ("I'm rejecting it because it sounds scary.") or sophistry in the form of rejecting facts because of their method of delivery ("I'm rejecting it because my opponent is focusing on the aspects of the problem he believes are a priority.").

This is also not limited to AGW. Here's an alleged BIG PHARMA scare tactic laid out. See: [An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All]

Money quote:
“I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,” Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. “So now I’ve changed it to ‘when enough children start to die.’ Because obviously, we’re not there yet.”
Click to expand...

To be frank: whether this is fearmongering or a basic statement of fact depends a bit on the reader's worldview.

But I do have a friend who misinterpreted this as a claim that Big Pharma is secretly conspiring to murder people to change public opinion in favour of vaccines. This misunderstanding is beyond worldview and is squarely in the realm of poor reading comprehension.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Sir John Houghton

"If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster."

Does he deny saying this too?
Click to expand...
No. Why?

Does taking snippets of quotes somehow magic purposeful fabrication into a real quote?
 
Bluto, you'll need a negative score for pedantism.

I think MHaze's atribution was within poetic license. The other posters are pedants, they should lose points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom