If you are looking for another post on behalf of the oil companies you can go elsewhere. The nonsense in this case, rather surprisingly endorsed by our old friend Philip Stott at Envirospin Watch, comes from the Diplomad.
Start with this paragraph taken from a recent report. Note especially the first sentence.
While no amount of climate change is safe and many communities, such as those in Arctic regions and low-lying island states, are already experiencing adverse impacts, scientific evidence suggests that there is a threshold of temperature increase above which the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change increase sharply. No one can say with certainty what that threshold is, but it is important that we make an educated judgment at this time based on the best available science.
Now look at this extract from the blog. Watch carefully because he's fast.
NO CLIMATE CHANGE AT ALL! The world's climate has NEVER EVER changed -- until evil man showed up and started doing stuff. And while "scientific evidence suggests a threshold of temperature" we have no friggin idea what it is, but we're not going to be deterred from doing something just because we don't know what we're doing!
See how quickly the (anonymous) author moves from selective misquote [No climate change at all] to a complete misrepresentation [the world's climate has never changed] in the space of a single line. Breathtakingly dishonest - worrying too because the authors of this blog claim to be career diplomats in the US Foreign Service!
Of course this is not the first time they have been caught out - such dishonesty takes practice.
Philip Stott also commends another piece of malicious misrepresentation over at TechCentral Station, from Tim Worstall. This is from the same report.
"On the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature, we propose a long-term objective of preventing average global surface temperature from rising by more than 2°C (3.6°F) above its pre-industrial level (taken as the level in 1750, when carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations first began to rise appreciably as a result of human activities).
Worstall changes this into an assertion that the paper argues climate change only began in the 1750s.
We might also note that no one, no one at all, thinks that human influence on the climate started in 1750 AD. Try 8,000 BC with the invention of agriculture.
I don't normally go to the more lunatic regions of Blogistan, still less attempt to comment on them. This garbage seems worse than usual however, if only for its endorsement by Philip Stott who in his post says he is "increasingly angry that science can be so abused".
Well by the standard of these dishonest posts his scientific judgement is slipping - will he be endorsing Velikovsky next?
