Comments on: Never Mind The Swindle, Here’s The Real Story:

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:23:35 +0000

Gregory you are right, let us point you and any others interested to check out what was said on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/2/channel4.ofcom also, check out http://www.climateaudit.org and what they said about Sir David King…’what did he say’?? was this a waste of time and energy by this ‘watch dog’?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:27:07 +0000

Picking? At what? Monbiot is a respected journalist and commentator, and the article is a good summary. There are plenty more out there too. Eg:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14379-why-climate-swindle-film-is-dangerous-despite-ruling.html

And what are you talking about when you say “Free Speech”? No one is having their right to comment impeded.

Sceptics will see the OfCom ruling as vindication, but of course they would despite the evidence. Doesn’t change the fact that it is a dishonest political polemic masquerading as a documentary.

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:49:33 +0000

Gregory…you are just picking again…perhaps we could look at all the comments besides the one that Mr Monbiot made…poor old Mr King (sorry Sir!) could we please have them all on this blog… free speech?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:34:55 +0000

Monbiot summed it up well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:40:07 +0000

Greetings from Whangarei…I trust you have all been following the ‘ofcom report’?? was it a great swindle? free speech?

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:34:19 +0000

The debate isn’t “closed”. If there is a case to be made from the sceptical side then it needs to be made in the proper channels. I have not seen this happen to date. Have you?

And what are you suggesting exactly with these comments about reviewers?

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:08:32 +0000

Greetings from Whangarei…no argument? debate closed? IPCC…19 reviewers made just one comment and 18 made between two and five comments. Just 10 made more than 20 comment on this, the most important chapter of the entire report. A total of 1158 comments were made. One reviewer made almost half of these, but almost all his suggested amendments were curtly rejected. the government of the USA made 113 comments :almost 10% of the total, but 32 of its comments duplicate those made by an individual reviewer. [edited by moderator]

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:11:14 +0000

And…? What does this prove exactly? Did the remaining 246 reviewers disagree? Or did they just not comment as the previous 62 commentators covered all concerns?

And how does this affect the report’s overall conclusions exactly?

“Need we say more… “? Yes. Yes you do. Because you have no argument.

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:14:59 +0000

Gregory….IPCC? remember this report? In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed warming over the last 50 years”. The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. However, only 62 of the IPCC ’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. not one from NZ? need we say more?..

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:24:06 +0000

Gregory. thank you for the comment, but did you take time out to check what this site says about the North Pole and South Pole and what your friends at Wiki say (this is more mind boggling)…please tell me is CO2 good for us? thank you from trevor C.