Saturday, August 19, 2017

HOW TO SPOT A CLIMATE FRAUD !!



Journalist Tony Thomas says of the greatest physicists developed a test for honest science. Warmists fail it.  Stating that 2016 was the ''Hottest Year'' their gross dishonesty was revealed regarding the actual GLOBAL TEMPERATURE: THE PAUSE NEVER WENT AWAY. 
Tony Thomas writes:
The trouble with mainstream climate scientists is that they’re third-rate scientists, and the reason they’re third-rate is that they’re dishonest. My authority for this statement is physicist Richard Feynman, (photo below) who has been dead for 29 years but was ranked by his peers as one of the ten greatest physicists of all time. Feynman set out the parameters for honest science in general, and I’ve never yet seen a mainstream climate scientist live up to Feynman’s honesty test.
Thomas quotes Feynman explaining the principles of his test, and adds:
There must now be tens of thousands of peer reviewed mainstream studies relying on the output of temperature computer-modelling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the 5th IPCC report of 2013, each such study, on Feynman’s honesty test, should include in the preamble that the 5th report noted [1] that 111 of 114 such model runs over-estimated actual temperatures from 1998-2012 — and they’re still over-estimating for 2012-2016, as demonstrated by John Christy’s satellite graphs provide in Congressional testimony last March.
Another example:
Another great Feynman-test fail is all this science-y stuff about hottest year ever. Surface based records (that have been ruthlessly adjusted by lowering the early-year temperature data) may show recent hottest years, but the 38-year satellite records don’t – at best the 2016 peak was within the margin of error relative to 2015. How can any honest scientist (on Feynman’s definition) fail to mention the awkward satellite data when assessing hottest years?

REALITY CHECK: A particularly strong El Nino event contributed about 0.2C to the annual average for 2016. This means that without the El Nino 2016 would have had a global temperature of 0.57+/- 0.1°C which is the same as 2014 and within the errors of 2010 (0.56) and 2005 (0.54). It would also have been in the 95% confidence range of 2013, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003 and 2002. In other words without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.

The Way I See It........what is fascinating about his common-sense tenets of scientific honesty is that today they are forgotten, ignored, corrupted and trampled upon by supposed scientists  in all fields playing ‘publish or perish’ and ‘get that grant’.  The climate scientists are particularly bad because the stakes in grants, influence and reputation are now so high. When the Climate Council’s CEO Amanda McKenzie talks about “carbon pollution”, why don’t the scientists on her board (Flannery, Hughes, Steffen, Bambrick) correct her and say carbon dioxide (not “carbon”) is  a plant food essential to life on earth, not “pollution”?  That’s what Feynman surely would want.

Friday, August 18, 2017

15 Muslims Forced To Get Rabies Shots As Police Order Their ‘Pleasure Donkey’ Be Killed !


There is plenty of evidence that Muslims from third-world countries can’t function in Western society. Even if all the terror activities are not considered, the lack of hygiene and oppressive society just isn’t compatible with civilization. In the latest example of Islamic depravity, at least 15 teens in Morocco, and most likely more, are being treated for rabies after gang raping an infected donkey.
Islamic culture is totally foreign to the basic morals and activities of educated nations. Their entire perception of right and wrong is horrifically alien to anyone raised in a developed country. Muslim terrorists brutally slaughter hundreds of people each year who they think are “infidels,” and their barbaric fundamental beliefs are completely opposite to every normal behavior in a civilized society.
The donkey abused by the teens was killed, for fear that its attractions would entice other “admirers.”
Local authorities are desperately pleading with anyone who “admired” the animal to report to a health facility for rabies treatment. It is thought that the numbers are higher than the original 15 because many parents took their sons outside the immediate area to avoid ridicule.
Rabies is a dreadful disease. The ignorant migrants who abused the animal began to show symptoms and were taken to hospitals. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Mayo Clinic report that the disease is almost always fatal after that occurs. “Once a person begins to exhibit signs of the disease, survival is rare. To date less than 10 documented cases of human survival from clinical rabies have been reported,” according to the CDC.
Initial symptoms are similar to the flu, but the infection spreads quickly. The progression occurs “within days,” getting worse until eventually “cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, confusion, agitation” are evident. The final stages typically include a person experiencing “delirium, abnormal behavior, hallucinations, and insomnia.”
The 15 boys from Sidi Al Kamel have already spent one week in the Mechraa Belksiri Hospital undergoing vaccinations because of their bestiality. The Moroccan town has mocked the perverted act, so migrants are ashamed by the disgust of their neighbors.
The treatment involves five injections of a rabies immune globulin shot, which is necessary for preventing the infection if caught immediately. If the symptoms have already appeared, as is the case with these animals, the best that can be hoped for is supportive care.
This activity is much more wide-spread than Western journalists would like people to believe. Because liberals are constantly calling for the open borders that would allow Muslims to enter civilized nations, the frequent bestiality within the Islamic culture is typically hushed up.
NO...your Dick is your Death-by-Rabies you sick Buggers !
In fact, although political groups like CAIR, which are intent on bringing more deviants to American and European shores, will condemn the story, such practices are common in third-world Muslim countries.
The Koran does not prohibit bestiality. Penalties for adultery and homosexuality result in death, but sexually abusing an animal is only mentioned in their holy book as it relates to cleanliness.
Sahih Muslim – Book of Menstruation – hadith #525 states, “if the penile head has penetrated a woman’s anus, or a man’s anus, or an animal’s vagina or its anus then it is necessary to wash whether the one being penetrated is alive or dead, young or old, whether it was done intentionally or absentmindedly, whether it was done willfully or forcefully.”
Experts Allen Edwardes (photo) and Robert Masters, Ph.D report that in Morocco, which is 98 percent Muslim, many believe that sexual relations with a donkey “make the penis grow big and strong.”
Because this donkey was infected with rabies, the practice has been made public. This is just another example of the foreign mindset of Muslims. To ensure that cultures around the world are protected, these deviants must remain in the land of their birth.
Moroccan authorities have killed the donkey for fear that he would attract other “admirers” and spread the disease. The atrocities against animals that Muslims consider normal are just too incompatible with developed nations.

The Way I See It........the political left feigns surprise when instance after instance of Muslim atrocities occur. Many crimes aren’t made public for fear of righteous anger overcoming the public’s good sense. However, the Islamic regimes that operate under sharia law give males supreme power. If man can’t find an unattended female or child to violate, any animal will do.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

We’ve Raised ''Generation Hopeless'': The MILLENNIALS !


FORGET lazy, self-centred or cocky — the truth about most millennials is they’re absolutely hopeless when it comes to basic life and workplace skills, experts say.
Research shows young adults are comfortable putting themselves ‘out there’ online, but all that time glued to screens has raised a generation incapable of small talk, critical thinking and problem-solving.
And that’s not to mention their staggering inability to cook, draft a personal budget or change a tyre.
“There’s been a very steep decline in interpersonal skills and it means that regardless of their school results, young people are going to struggle to get a job,” educator Michaela Launerts said.
Launerts (photo right) has written the book #Girlcode, which she describes as a guide to interacting properly on this side of a screen.
“It teaches people how to prevent potential disasters in their professional and personal lives that may occur because of the consequences of their online and (online-influenced) behaviour.”
Topics canvassed include the basics, from shaking hands, to more advanced areas like how to convey positive body language, grooming, the art of conversation, dinner etiquette and managing intimate relationships.
The blame for many of these personal inadequacies lies with the internet, she believes. A number of other sociologists agree.
Technological advances has made verbal communication redundant in many parts of life — ordering a pizza, taking part in a university class, planning a holiday and even gym personal training can all be done via an app.
What this means is young people aren’t used to speaking to someone in person or on the phone, and the thought of doing so terrifies them.
A survey of American millennials by One Poll found 65 per cent don’t feel comfortable engaging with someone face-to-face, and 80 per cent prefer conversing digitally.
As a result of this they’re less likely to understand how they’re perceived by others in real life.
They struggle to strike up a conversation and can’t navigate tricky problems like workplace conflict.
Their time management is shocking and they desire senior roles they can’t possibly hope to hold down.
“They’re so used to being able to filter themselves before they post something on line that they get stuck in a kind of real life stage fright,” Launerts said.
“I’ve spoken to teenage girls who are more frightened of eating in public than putting a provocative picture of themselves online. That’s so frightening to me.”
‘GENERATION LACKING’
It’s not just educators who are worried about how woefully unprepared so many young adults are for life.
They’re more likely to have a tertiary degree than any other generation, and they can code software and create magic in a digital environment.
But Rachel Weinstein, (photo) a clinical psychologist who founded The Adulting School in the US, said these highly skilled candidates often crash and burn in interviews with prospective employers.
“Many lack skills creating a resume, interviewing and (engaging in) professional correspondence,” Weinstein told CNS News.
These sorts of strengths are called ‘soft skills’ — critical thinking, problem solving, attention to detail, working in a group, and verbal and written communication.
These things might sound basic, but they’re often missing in most young adults, Lisa Renneisen, co-founder of the GenerationYOU training conference, said.
“The event teaches millennials these soft skills, or enterprise skills as they’re also known, which every jobseeker need regardless of the role — networking, problem solving, interviewing techniques, personal branding and so on,” Renneisen said.
“But it’s also about bringing them together and empowering them with the knowledge that they’re not alone, and that they can control their own destiny.”
The conference, which has expanded rapidly and now takes place in cities across Australia throughout the year, began through Renneisen’s own experience with young recruits.
“We had a bad run with hiring young people back in 2014,” the event and training company director recalled.
“There was one who never showed up (on the first day), one who started but switched off after a few months … the more we spoke to other employers, the more we realised it wasn’t just us.”
Launerts said millennials have grown up in online worlds where they make their own rules and don’t learn the social conventions that are still expected of them.
“I think it’s because of the time they’re spending online, which promotes an inward-facing attitude,” Launerts said.
Eye contact, not interrupting, a proper handshake, social engagement — they struggle with what older generations consider basic niceties.
“Body language and creating a good first impression shape how someone sees you. I think most young people lack the concept of what body language is. They’re not equipped with the skills to make a good first impression and that’s a real problem.”
She has met dozens of recruiters who report being “astounded” at the conduct of young jobseekers. Unless something changes, we’ll wind up with a segment of the population doomed to fail, she believes.
“They won’t get the opportunity to thrive … without these skills they’re going to become passive observers of their own lives.”
NOT ENTIRELY NERVOUS
A study of millennials in the workplace by researchers at the University of California observed that young adults are “unusually and extraordinarily confident” in their abilities.
It has long been noted that younger generations want it all — and they want it now.
“The idea of paying their dues by working hard to demonstrate their worth before they’re given significant tasks is likely to be resisted by millennials,” the UC paper noted.
“They seek key roles in significant projects soon after their organisational entry … co-workers see them as overly confident and inappropriately demanding, asking ‘who do you think they are?’”
And by many indications, they are skilled in the theory of their respective professions.
Rather than their ambition being an issue, it’s their inability to ‘walk the walk’ when they climb the corporate ladder, Renneisen said.
“They want to skip the entry level, junior roles and go into middle management and the like, but they lack the skills needed when they get there,” she said.
“It’s everything from picking up the phone to have an awkward or confrontational conversation with someone to working with large teams and managing others.”
FISH OUT OF WATER
This lack of interpersonal skills results in often awkward encounters, university professor Elwood Watson (photo right) noted in an essay for Diverse Education.
“They engage in behaviour that previous generations would consider weird or outright rude, Watson, an academic at East Tennessee State University, wrote.
“I see this inability to converse directly with other human beings. I’ve seen students on campus walking next to one another and texting, as opposed to speaking. They’re also terrified of directly confronting problems or fears.”
It’s not just at work where they’re lacking.
Weinstein said millennials flounder when it comes to personal finances, meal planning, time management and general home-based tasks.
“Due to budget cuts and restructuring, schools have changed curriculum and cut courses like (home economics) and consumer science,” she said.
“Families are busy in this fast-paced society and there’s less time to focus on household chores, where kids would be learning those skills.”
The Way I See It.......the blame doesn’t lie entirely with digital technology. How we educate young people could also be behind the dwindling priority placed on life skills.
Teaching students how to pass exams and standardised tests is favoured more and more.
“As a result, we’ve created a generation of doctors, lawyers and accountants who don’t know how to cook dinner. The disconnect is stark — minds capable of advanced calculus that are unfamiliar with creating a monthly budget,” the Huffington Post noted.
THANKFULLY THE SITUATION IS FAR FROM HOPELESS
Life skills are essential, and thankfully they’re not difficult to learn. We need to show them how to be their best selves.

Monday, August 14, 2017

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage !

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it. 
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: 
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) 
While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.
Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married. 
The Way I See It........clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
 Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Civil Unrest on the rise across urban Australia – a final solution ?


Race riots are on the rise in Australia’s major cities because it is the outer urban areas that the ethnic ghettos have been allowed to grow and fester.  Urban Australian society has disintegrated and decultured since Labour Prime Minister Geoff Whitlam’s naive 1972 multiculturalism manifesto.

Australia saw many race riots between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries when immigration was out of control, and the riots are back because immigration is out of control again.   In December 2005 roaming Arab gangs stirred up the infamous Cronulla Riots along Sydney’s beaches.   In September this year, 300 Arabs rioted in the centre of Sydney over a foreign issue nothing to do with Australia or Australians.

Early yesterday morning in ethnic concentrated south western Brisbane riot erupted between up to 150 young males resulting in one man driven over and murdered.

Australian police report that the riot spilled out from two parties in the south-western outer suburb of Woodridge in Station Road shortly after 10.30pm after news of the parties was widely circulated via mobile phones and Facebook.  Woodbridge is adjacent to the infamous Logan Ghetto which has attracted a high concentration of Pacific Islander immigrants.

Witnesses say the 21 year old driver deliberately run down a 17-year-old boy after his car was damaged in the riot.  Then the driver fled the scene.  The teenager has since died in hospital from his injuries and police have arrested the 21 year old, seize the car and charged the driver with murder.

On the same day in ethnic south-western Sydney, a race riot blew up involving 30 African spectators at a soccer match- a Sudanese community football cup.  Initial reports indicated the fight was racially motivated.

The riot ensued from Van Hasselt Park where the match was being played in the outer suburban ethnic enclave of Willmot near Penrith.  The fighting involved Sudanese immigrants, both men and women from their late teens to early 20s.  The fighting spilled over into the street and continued for two kilometres along the length of Palmyra Avenue.

One man was stabbed in the back and four others were injured when a chisel, a spanner, a knife and a football corner flag were used in a brawl in Sydney’s west, police say.

Police were called about 4.30pm and established a crime scene stretching across the two kilometres, from Forrester Road, Lethbridge Park, to Van Diemen Avenue, Willmot. Three people were taken to Westmead Hospital and two to Nepean Hospital.

Officers arrested one man, but no one has been charged yet.  Police seized clothing and five cars for forensic examination.  Investigators arrested one man and five others were taken to hospital, three to Westmead and two to Nepean. One of those remains under police guard.

Chief Inspector Bill Pearce, from Mount Druitt local area command, said police were not certain what caused the riot.  “It’s something within the community,” he said.
Only three months ago, a soccer riot occurred between fans at the Campbelltown Stadium in south-western Sydney in mid-August.  About 15-20 youths were embroiled during a pre-season game between Sydney FC and the Macarthur Rams soccer teams. A man was taken by ambulance to hospital, and a six-year-old boy was grazed by a flying rock.
Australians have had enough.  We need more than increased law and order.  New South Wales Police Operation ‘Unite’ goes operational from next weekend targeting public drunkenness.

But the police can only do so much.  Why should our domestic police do the job of Immigration anyway?  This is a serious ethnic problem undermining our social fabric. Our national government has a duty to protect its citizens from criminals, from civil disorder and from invasion.  Our national government needs to remove the cause of this growing ethnic violence problem – put an end uncontrolled immigration, deport the offenders and abolish multiculturalism.

Fix our Criminal and Migration Laws

  • Place and immediate moratorium on all immigration into Australia and suspend our antiquated Migration Act of 1951.
  • Put a series of referenda to the Australian people on key immigration policy issues, allowing the re-establishment of immigration only as each referendum item is approved by the majority of Australian citizens
  • Nationalise Australia’s numerous and disparate state-based and antiquated criminal laws into one consistent Crimes Act, including making ‘Riot and Affray’ a serious crime that it is, and the unauthorised carrying of a deadly weapon to be deemed a serious crime
  • Include in the new Migration and Crimes Acts the auto-deportation any non-Australian born person convicted of a serious crime back to their country of origin, including all those currently in an Australian gaol.  This is to be retrospective.
  • Include in the new Migration and Crimes Acts the auto-deportation of non-Australian born parents or legal guardians of minors convicted of a serious crime back to their country of origin.  The minors are to accompany them. This is to be retrospective.
  • Develop future immigration policy that prevents ethnic concentrated settlements and mandate that all new immigrants must settle outside urban areas in order to qualify for a residency visa.
  • Abolish multiculturalism as a failed social experiment, as many Eurpoean countries have started recognising.
The Way I See It......within six months Australia’s urban crime rate would surely be back under control and our gaols beginning to empty.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

DELINGPOLE: How I Totally Crushed the Ocean Acidification Alarmist Loons !


Meet Dr Phil Williamson: climate ‘scientist’; Breitbart-hater; sorely in need of a family size tube of Anusol to soothe the pain after his second failed attempt to close down free speech by trying to use press regulation laws to silence your humble correspondent.

Williamson – who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails – got very upset about some articles I’d written for Breitbart and the Spectator pouring scorn on his junk-scientific field, Ocean Acidification.
In my view Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees. The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare – and getting flimsier by the day.
But if, like Williamson, you are being paid large sums of money to conduct a research programme into Ocean Acidification, you’ll obviously want to defend your mink-lined, gold-plated carriage on the climate change gravy train. So first he wrote a long, earnest defence of his income stream in Marine Biologist.
Then, when no one cared, he made a formal complaint about one of my articles to the UK press regulatory body IPSO. And to judge by the punchy tone of this piece he published in Nature before Christmas, he fully expected to win.
Tragically, though, he just lost.
After a long deliberation, IPSO has released its verdict and found that I had no case to answer. Williamson’s complaint was not upheld.
I’m trying hard to be modest here; I’m trying not to gloat. But I’m afraid the facts of the case just won’t allow me.
IPSO’s verdict represents a crushing defeat for the cause of climate alarmism. In this particular scenario, you need to picture me as Julius Caesar in my chariot, wearing purple with a laurel crown around my head; Williamson (and his alarmist cronies) meanwhile, are Vercingetorix and his defeated Gauls (though without the romantic charm and heroism, obviously) being dragged behind me in chains through the streets of Rome prior to being taken to the city’s prison to be ritually strangled.
Seriously, it could hardly be worse for the eco-loons. Just relish the misery in the comments below this report in the Guardian.
Here are some of the comments:
It’s just a passing comment, but Dingopile is an arsehole that knows less than bugger all about climate change! [Do you see what he did with my name there? Comedy genius!]
Nothing written by Delingpole (photo right) is proper science. The man has a degree in English literature.
So it’s okay to publish outright falsehoods meant to mislead the public, as long as you are of the right?
Delingpole is like a 4 year old child who purposefully defecates in his pants for attention.
Delingpole is not a scientist, certainly not an oceanographer, so why print his ramblings on things he knows nothing about?
James Delingpole is a total arse. He has sunk below the level of Michael Gove or Nigel Farage. He does not deserve this publicity by Damian Carrington. He thrives on the oxygen, and he must not be given any oxygen at all.
Note how very personal it all is. And that’s because, as the last commenter rightly noticed, the Guardian’s Environment editor, the Hon. Damian Carrington, (Winchester and Balliol), decided to make it personal.
His headline read:
The article was full of snarky little asides, like:
Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the windfarm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens “eco-nazis” and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing: “Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”
[I would like to make it clear if I haven’t already that I apologise profusely to any paedophiles who may have been offended at being linked to the wind turbine industry]
This is because in the eyes of the climate alarmist establishment I am one of the most dangerous people on earth. And I say this not to brag. It is merely an observable fact that there are certain figures – in the field of climate science they include people like Willie Soon, Pat Michaels and Tim Ball; in journalism they include me, Christopher Booker, David Rose and, perhaps notably, Mark Steyn; in politics they include Lord Lawson, Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts and now Donald Trump –  who drive the Greenies apopleptic with rage. And because the Greenies see us as significant and influential, they seek at every turn to claim our scalps.
Which, of course, was the whole point of this complaint by Phil Williamson to the press regulator IPSO.
Had Williamson been successful it would have been a major blow to the cause of scientific rationalism, honest scepticism and freedom of speech. It would have been cited and crowed about ad nauseam by the usual suspects in the mainstream media – from the BBC to the New York Times – and in the house journals of the alarmist science establishment, such as Nature and Scientific American.
Damian Carrington
We know that this was the plan because of how closely the case was being followed by the Guardian‘s environment editor Damian Carrington. The first I heard of the IPSO ruling was when Carrington sent an email to my editor at the Spectator Fraser Nelson asking for a comment on the verdict. (The reason Williamson brought his case against the article I wrote in the Spectator, by the way, and not against any of the ones I’d written in Breitbart is because Breitbart  doesn’t subscribe to the press regulator IPSO, so he would have been whistling into the wind).

You might think this odd: why would a journalist with absolutely no connection with the case get to hear the result before either the journalist named in the complaint or the publication responsible for running the offending article? The answer, one can only presume, is that Carrington was in close touch with the complainant, Phil Williamson – and was waiting to strike the moment the good news came that the Delingpole monster had been slain by Britain’s press regulator.
The knock-on effects, had IPSO found against my article, would have been dire: the publications for which I write (both the Spectator and Breitbart) would have been made to look like sloppy purveyors of what the left loves to call these days “fake news”; my credibility as a reporter on climate science and the environment would have been diminished (not in the eyes of my regular readers, perhaps, but definitely in the eyes of all those undecideds who can’t make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I’m talking bollocks); and, perhaps worst of all, the junk science concept of Ocean Acidification would have been given a reprieve it simply doesn’t deserve.
In case I haven’t made my position sufficiently clear on Ocean Acidification – always a danger with me: I’m forever holding back for fear that someone somewhere might be offended – this seems a good moment to restate it:
Ocean Acidification is a scam – the second biggest one in science right now. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or even unlikely that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may be causing parts of our ocean to become marginally less alkaline. What I’m definitely saying is that it doesn’t matter a toss, to whit:
Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.
It’s much more a political invention than a scientific one. I call it the climate alarmists’ Siegfried Line because that’s what it really is: it’s their fallback position for when man-made climate change theory finally collapses and they need to find some other half-arsed excuse for justifying their global war on the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide.
I’m by no means the only person to have pointed this out. Matt Ridley [below] (who unlike me has  a scientific background) has written about it herehere and here.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, has written a paper debunking it. As has Craig Idso.
So, much as the climate alarmists might pretend otherwise, my scepticism about Ocean Acidification isn’t some weird, lonely, contrarian position I’ve adopted just because I can’t help being an idiot or because I’m instinctively anti-science or because I’m not familiar with the material or because I’m funded by sinister vested interests which want the Ocean Acidification industry to fail or because – if you believe professional greenie Mark Lynas – I’m a “liar” and part of the “alt-right”.
Nope. I’m against Ocean Acidification theory because I’ve done loads and loads of background reading both about the way this marginal phenomenon has been overhyped  and about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem worth addressing. And the conclusion I’ve reached is that it’s both a money-making scam for some of the many second-rate scientists the grotesquely overbought climate alarmism sector seems to attract and also a silly dangerous propaganda campaign on behalf of all those anti-free-market greenies who are forever in search of another cod-scientific excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us in their endless war against economic growth.
Needless to say, the Ocean Acidification experts with their snouts in the Ocean Acidification don’t like hearing this point of view, which is why they are so livid about the IPSO decision.
The complainant, Phil Williamson, has written a stroppy piece for the Conversation (a website in which mostly left-wing academics are given space to vent about their pet gripes), denouncing IPSO with a piece titled “Science loses out to uninformed opinion on climate change – yet again.”
But this misrepresents IPSO’s decision.
It’s not “Science” – as Williamson grandly terms it – that was under attack in my various articles on Ocean Acidification. I’m not questioning the achingly trivial points that Williamson and his pals may or may not have alighted upon in the course of their navel-gazing research. What I’m questioning is whether it’s right that taxpayers should have to stump up for this research – and whether its findings are in any way significant or useful.
This, as IPSO rightly decided in its ruling, is a matter of opinion.
Findings of the Complaints Committee
19. The article was written in the first person, and sought to challenge what it made clear was the consensus view on ocean acidification. Before the article set out its criticisms, it referred to there being an extensive academic literature on the subject, and made clear that the theory had been endorsed by scientists from a number of institutions. The article referred to the author as being one of a group of “sceptics”, and a “denier”, and the final sentence of the article suggested it was “time our supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ were taken more seriously”The article was clearly a comment piece, in which the author was expressing sceptical views on ocean acidification, and describing sceptical views expressed by others, that were contrary to the academic consensus. 
The Committee’s role is not to make findings of fact or to resolve conflicting evidence in relation to matters under debate. Rather, it assesses the care taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and establishes whether a distinction is clearly made between comment, conjecture and fact, in determining whether the Code has been breached.
At Watts Up With ThatEric Worrall puts his finger on the fatal flaw of Williamson’s case:
In my opinion this entire sorry episode goes straight to the heart of the difference between the way alarmists like Williamson see the world, and the way normal people view the world.
Alarmists seem to want their models, theories and opinions to be accepted as established fact. But the reality is their shaky theories are full of poorly supported conjecture and extrapolation.
Indeed. And it’s by no means the first time Williamson and his crew have tried it on. In 2011 they made a very similar complaint – to what was then known as the Press Complaints Commission – about a piece I’d written on the Climategate scandal.
They objected especially to my description of Phil Jones, the then-head (recently retired) of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.
What rather scuppered this particular complaint was when I provided the Press Complaints Commission with more than enough evidence to back up the claim.
But the thing that needs to be understood about these complaints is that they are not really designed to sift right from wrong, truth from untruth. Rather, as Mark Steyn (photo right) says, process is the punishment. That is, if you’re a publicly funded scientist on a generous grant with plenty of time on your hands in your cosy academic sinecure, then it’s no problem at all to while away a few days preparing your vexatious complaint to IPSO or the Press Complaints Commission. But if you’re the hapless journalist who has to prepare your defence, it’s a different story: you’re very busy, time is money, and the whole process is so grindingly tedious you’d almost rather lose then have to go through each pettifogging criticism, crossing every T and dotting every I. (That’s why I would have probably lost had it not been for the efforts of the brilliant and indefatigable Ben Pile who has much more of an appetite for kicking irritating, querulous, nitpicking academics into touch by beating them at their own game).
the 
Thank goodness I did win, though – not so much for my own sake but for the far more important causes of freedom of speech, honest and open scientific inquiry and responsible use of taxpayers’ money.
Oh, and also, for the sheer joy of causing some really dreadful, low-grade people endless amounts of teeth-gnashing misery.

Williamson, consider yourself pawned. Now, back into your box, where you belong, you lank-haired pillock.