Feels hard done by
They don’t, interestingly, include the obvious one: the “consensus” science is riddled with errors, fudged data and spin, is hugely politicised, and the IPCC is starting to resemble a bunch of losers who will be so discredited that they won’t be able to show their faces in polite society for decades. No, Prof Pitman (UNSW) chooses to avoid that one, clearly missing the irony of trying to make this point so soon after Climategate, Glaciergate and Hurricanegate, and all the other “-gates” yet to come.
So here they are, in all their gruesome glory (from the ABC… where else?):
- “Sceptics are so well funded, and so well organised” – so the $70 billion or so thrown at alarmist scientists to try to prove AGW since the mid 1990s (which, by the way, they still haven’t managed to do) is just loose change, I guess? Are you admitting that the alarmists are a disorganised rabble?
- “They have nothing else to do. They don’t have day jobs…” – [so ludicrous that no comment is required – Ed]
- “…so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public” – Sorry, but we can’t hold a candle to your celebrity warm-mongers like Al Gore, James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Robyn Williams etc etc (continued p 94). They’re the real misinformation experts here.
And then the best one of all [cue violins]:
- “All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job, I think.”
Doesn’t it just make your heart bleed? I mean this guy must be on another planet. The climate alarmist movement must be one of the most well funded scientific bandwagon in the history of the freaking planet! And the media happily print anything they say, without question. Try getting a sceptical article printed anywhere in the mainstream media. Oh per-lease, as they say. And of course, in the spirit of full disclosure, the ABC points out that Prof Pitman is co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.
Andy Pitman’s home pages are here, by the way, with an email address in case any of ACM’s readers would like to send a donation, or a pair of socks or something.
Australian Climate Madness 
Disgraceful. Notice the heading. “Scientists” are losing the battle. So sceptics are not scientists they are just well funded loonies eh? What a bunch of liars, thieves and frauds. No mention at all about the Billions in Climate funding.
This is PRIME ABC. Specifically aimed at undermining Monckton.
Our tax dollars at work, even against logic and sanity
Absolutely disgraceful.
Lachlan
“All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job, I think.”
This entry is from Andy’s own funding link in his webpage…
2004-7
Australian Greenhouse Office (for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $48,400
So skeptics don’t have jobs but have lots of spare cash for their cause. This guy’s a genius.
Have you seen HIS funding? I wish I had 1/100th of it!!! http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/apitman-funding
Presumably, with the prof’s views he has a day job & is just moonlighting as co-director of the wholly unfunded Climate Change Research Centre as a hobby?
Nonetheless he should have produced his evidence of some sceptic getting so much more than the £13.6 million the unpaid Prof Jones of the CRU got. Perhaps, being charitable, the page containing actual facts was mislaid by some unpaid journalist at ABC who was putting the article together.
“Sceptics are so well funded”
Had another look and found these minor funding entries for Andy Pittman…
2005-9
ARC Network: An Australian Earth System Science Network (RN0460181) $1.95 m
2005-9
ARC Network -New Zealand Research Network for Vegetation Function Prof. Mark Westoby and others including A.J. Pitman (RN0459908) $2.0 m
Andy’s got a good seat on engineer Choo Choo Pachauri’s gravy train, probably a whole carriage, no wonder he’s cranky with anyone out to derail it.
As an alumnus of UNSW, I am horrified that such drivel can emanate from an academic from there. The only consolation is that Penn State & UEA are worse.
Thanks for that. Have borrowed it for today’s posting, with acknowledgements.
You have to be kidding. The only way to get research funding – in virtually any scientific discipline- is to make sure you have the words “climate change” in the title. I kid you not. Just look at the latest NSW Environmental Trust funding priorities – it is – wait for it – climate change.
In my discipline we need desperately to research the links between what we eat and how it is produced so that farmers can produce healthy, safe products – very little money is available, especially from traditional funding sources. Why? All the their priorities have been shifted to “climate change”. So to get any funding you have to title your funding application “….. in response to climate change”.
I remember years ago doing drought modelling and the LWA had a priority on “Climate Variability”. Not a lot of money involved – not seen as a priority. But did get some – now it’s all taken by carpet baggers to show that ttheir models predict more severe droughts etc etc etc. This funding organisation does not exist any more. KRudd destroyed it to create his MMCC department.
So this guy thinks that “climate skeptics” are well funded? Can he please point me to where the money is, so I can get some!!
What a load of the usual BS from these people. Agree with Simon, why do the MSM print this crap? After reading this article, one has to believe in conspiracy theories.
[Snip]. He uses the 3 main deception ploys.
1. Admits nothing (the Sgt Schulz defence)
2. Denies everything
3. Makes counter accusations
Not to much longer and these [snip] will be gone,unfortunately so will the cash.
[Sorry, have to be careful what is said – Simon]
I have had email correspondance with good old Andy and he is a major embarassment to the scientific community. He can’t even spell science…I kid you not. The emails I have had back from him are unbelievable. He told me that we “skeptive” [sic] are all funded and it is on public record. He then went on to tell me that there is a Nobel prize waiting for anyone who can disprove the global warming theory and that if they did it would disprove all categories of science….!
[snip]
The ETS is going up again in the first sitting of parliament for the year. I have borrowed the following from the Jo Nova site, please email these senators today! –
The government needs 7 votes in the Senate. If they get the 5 Green votes, they need 2 others. There are rumours the last two votes could come from the two Liberals who crossed the floor to vote for the ETS in December (and against their new leader wishes and against the majority of their party).
The email campaign was a major success in November and December. I’m still hearing about it from members of Parliament. It burned an impression on Senators and their staffers that thousands of emails arrived, each one crafted individually, not “cut n paste automated emailling”. They had not seen anything like it before. They are still going through them.
These two Senators need to know how you (and your contacts in QLD and Victoria) feel about the introduction of a new tax system based on corrupt science. This is legislation that’s guaranteed to help large financial houses increase their profits, but not make any difference to lakes, wetlands, trees, birds or coral reefs:
Senator Boyce’s (Queensland) email address: senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au
Judith Troeth (Victorian): senator.troeth@aph.gov.au
@Paul: I posted on this a few days ago: Greens may vote for ETS in Senate. I will be posting again in due course.
Paul,
I was one of the lonely thousands of individuals who emailed the senators, Coalition and Labor, with my own opinions. I emailed senators Troeth and Boyce twice last week with short posts urging them to not cross the floor. Quite frankly their reasons for doing so the last time were embarrassingly emotional. Troeth pretty-well said there are more droughts; it must be global warming. Groan.
Andy Pitman’s claim that climate change sceptics are well-funded and don’t have day jobs was not only untrue but monumentally stupid. He’s made himself out to be a complete dork. If he’s that stupid why is he a professor?
He is a professor because the government, who ultimately fund it, ensure that sceptical scientists & you can’t be a real scientist without scepticism, don’t get professorships & they go only to wholly corrupt liars like him. If he were to provide proof of his claim that sceptics & only sceptics were paid I would have to retract the statement that he is wholly & completely corrupt, but I doubt if I will.