Dr John Dee

Yep, the very same one. I rather enjoy this: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ It's a bit dated now but so is not-Lord Monckton's influence on the climate debate (his influence on the odd Demonland poster or two is another matter). And the same not-Lord Monckton who was so keen to be regarded as a member of the House of Lords because he thought it had something to do with peer-reviewing of scientific papers. Interesting, too, that you should mention Arts degrees since not-Lord Monckton's authority rests in an MA. Only one from Cambridge though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_%28Oxbridge_and_Dublin%29 ... I know, it's only from Wikipedia, but it's just background)

I think you'll find that the 18 year 'figure' is the one promoted by no lesser an authority than that not-scientist, not-Lord Monckton. Bolt ... Monckton ... not sure there's much difference ...

2 nil as it turns out, but that doesn't mean you're not 100% right.

Hey Ben We need to hire a cherry-picker to get at several of the limbs and branches broken from about a dozen trees during last Thursday afternoon's storm here (unprecedented in its destructiveness in our valley, a harbinger perhaps of some change in the climate). I'm wondering whether you might be available.

That all you've got? BTW, once you reach for the ad hominem you lose too.

There's no trace of a hidden post so put it down to exhaustion.

And now Bournemouth have rolled United. WTF is going on? At this rate the Arse will end up accidental champions.

Is that a matter of putting the horse before the carrot, 'bub?

I'm not sure what you think you're asking with that question, but no, it's not all I've got: (i) I said there were other instances but I'm not going to bother itemising them; and/or (ii) if you think misrepresenting your research is a trivial matter then you don't have a sufficient grasp of what's at stake in the basic questions of knowledge and interpretation involved in the climate 'debate' to be expecting anything you've got to say to be taken seriously. That's not my problem, it's yours. Able? I've said it before but obviously I need to spell it out: I choose not to bother with the substance (such as it is) of what you hoover up and deposit here because it has inevitably been addressed/questioned/disproved elsewhere. For me, adding anything at that kind of level to this or any other thread about global warming is just an exercise in redundancy. In any case, the distinction you want to draw between propositions and claims and the methods by which they're derived/stated isn't as neat as you might like it to be. I won't attempt to spell out what the questions and their implications are since presumably all I'll get is more sarcasm about longwindedness but there are a whole series of issues in this that inform how we understand both sides of the argument, but also undermine either when it's not framed with a recognition of the complexity of what's involved. I don't know who's going to end up looking gullible, chaos will no doubt have a say in that. But I also don't think that bragging rights in 2059 or whenever matters all that much. The issues are elsewhere.

post #344. Source claimed as http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=%22climate%20change%22&searchLimits= Actual source Steven Goddard. There are plenty more. Sorry, but claiming to have identified an original source for yourself when someone else has done the research is claiming that research as your own. But so too is appropriating stuff from denialist sites (whether originating there or or on some other denialist site) without acknowledgement, no matter what people reading here think or don't think about what you're doing. If some climate scientist did it your lot would be jumping up and down about fraud.

Thought it was me who was supposed to be doing the sniping on this thread. Oh, and don't confuse what I know with what I think. I realise that might be difficult for you, given you've even attempted to turn a thread on changes at a radio station into an opportunity for ideological soapboxing, but the rest of us are actually able to hold more than one idea in mind at a time. Here's a little something I do know how to find: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/almost-everything-we-know-about-fake.html Enjoy your faith in the charlatans and half-truthers and tinfoil hat wearers on the web. It may give you plenty of opportunity for vacuuming up stuff and dumping it here unremittingly and without proper acknowledgement*; but the real debate, as I've already said, is elsewhere and it's not about what you think it's about. * even someone like Steven Goddard is entitled to have his work, irrelevant as it may be, acknowledged and not have it passed off as your research, isn't he?

I sent you a pm about this immediately after. Did you not receive it? If not, there may be another problem in the system.

Having a good time with the stalking? A couple of comments is obsessive is it? You really have lost the plot. If you ever had it. The countdown has begun. Unlike some on this thread I don't have the hubris to predict what the planet's future will be but I know yours.

Still in Egypt then, Biff? Bullying is bullying. Doesn't matter who the bullyee is. Oh, and when you can take a joke, let us know.

Pity you don't know what that is. Nice try though.

Tried it again. Worked this time.

OMG when I went to the donation site it said the total reached was $666. I immediately panicked and tried to add another 50 to get away from that infernal number but the process keeps jamming on a 'share location' pop up. Have tried exiting and starting again three times, but the same thing happens.

Oh come on Daisy, the 'graph' is a piece of tosh (and the bottom left hand corner tells you why). Using it to try and beat hardtack over the head is argument for its own sake. And no, that's not all the link 'shows'... even if it were, the different ways of portraying data still doesn't give you pause for thinking you might have been just a bit precipitate in criticising 'tack? If not, you obviously prefer the bollocks version. So much for open minds.

A bit of research on that isn't hard to do. Try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/comment-page-2/

Thanks for this faulty. Well worth stopping by to read.

Sorry, Arsenal is already preparing to exercise its traditional option on fourth. Liverpool will just have to plan on third.

I thought that was Hogan.

Not really surprising, Luce. He's describing what's at stake for WADA in the appeal. That won't compromise the court's deliberations and it doesn't breach the secrecy of the proceedings.

Around here I'm not sure whether only one body would be likely to turn up. We had a bloke wave us down a while ago, asking for a lift because there were two people chasing him trying 'to murder' him. Don't know whether it was an elaborate hitchhiking ruse but he did look genuinely spooked.