Hey lookit! Moonbat's offering a non-prize! Let's help him out!

[Editor]

Pure rubbish: Christopher Booker Prize 2009
George Monbiot's blog


Christopher Booker prize 2009 offered for producing clap-trap about climate change
Photograph: George Monbiot/Guardian

Nominate any single article, statement, lecture, film or interview which you think misrepresents or distorts information about climate change. This work must be available online. One point is given for every mistake made in our opinion, though one point will be deducted for every retraction or correction published by the author or the original outlet within a reasonable period of time.

Please use the field below to make your nominations and remember to add a link to the specific article. Nominations will remain open until 31 December 2009. There are no prizes for readers nominating pieces for the Christopher Booker prize.

We reckon we can do a lot better than that!

I haven't spoken to Steve yet but I'm pretty sure I can talk him out of CONFIRMED -- prize is an autographed copy of Green Hell for a winning entry posted here (we'll open a poll to vote for the best, eh?).

Our only condition is that your nomination must also be submitted via The Guardian's form.

Now, George's criteria "any single article, statement, lecture, film or interview which you think misrepresents or distorts information about climate change. This work must be available online." gives you a pretty wide field, although the IPCC's AR4 appears to be excluded under the "single article" clause so that's out, maybe algore's books & multimedia presentations too.

Whatever, see what gorebull warming nonsense you can find to nominate.

Let's give George & The Groaniad a hand.

Just post your nominations as a reply to this item (you may have to self-register if you haven't already)

(There's a nomination form here or go direct to their google spreadsheet here.)

Terms and conditions

(1) You can make as many nominations as you wish, until 11.59pm on December 31st 2009. Reader nominations will be considered by the Guardian, but our decision on a winner will be final.

(2) There is no prize draw associated with nominations. No prizes will be awarded to readers for submitting a nomination.

(3) The winner of the Christopher Booker Prize will be announced on the George Monbiot blog in early 2010.

(4) Following the announcement, the winner of the Christopher Booker Prize will be entitled to claim their trophy and Kendal Mint Cakes by emailing james.randerson@guardian.co.uk. No other prizes will be awarded.

[Richard S Courtney]

All:

In response to Moonbat's request for nominations for the 'Booker Prize', I have submitted the following.
 
All the best
 
Richard
 
**************
 
I nominate the letter from Dr James Hansen, Head of NASA GISS, and his wife, Anniek Hansen, to President Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama.  The letter is available at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/letter-to-barack-obama

The letter calls for the following stupid and murderous actions.

(a)

“Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2. This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly.”

A call for a “phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2” is a call to phase-out most of the world’s electricity supply.  Simply, it is a call to “phase-out” industrial civilisation over the next few decades.

Coal plants generate most of the world’s electricity, and construction of replacement nuclear power stations would take about 30 years.   Also, at present, it is not possible to “capture and store CO2” and the completion and installation of such technology would take at least 30 years. Our present energy supply is provided by nuclear power and fossil fuels with significant contributions from hydropower and geothermal power.  There is little possibility of increased use of hydropower and geothermal power, and the laws of physics decree that return to wind, animal and solar energies cannot displace much fossil fuel usage.  Only expansion of nuclear power could significantly displace use of coal plants and that displacement would take at least 30 years.

(b)

“Rising price on carbon emissions via a "carbon tax and 100% dividend".”

But the UK tried a “rising price on carbon emissions” with its ‘fuel price escalator’.  The effects of that ‘escalator’ induced public civil disobedience that forced the ‘escalator’ to be abandoned long before it reached a level where it could reduce fuel usage.

And the letter makes the daft assertion that

“Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know”

The statement that “Burning all the fossil fuels” is ambiguous.  It could mean

(1) the combustion of the total of fossil fuels which exists

or

(2) the use of all forms of fossil fuels; i.e. coal, oil, gas and peat.

But the statement is nonsense whichever meaning it has.

The combustion of all fossil fuels is probably not possible and certainly will not happen.  There is sufficient coal alone to provide the total requirement for fossil fuels for at least the next 300 years and probably for the next 1,000 years.  Oil and gas can be made from coal.  Nobody can know what energy needs and supplies will be 300 years in the future from now.  (It could have been shown 300 years ago that today’s transportation could not be possible because there is not sufficient land to grow all the hay that would be needed for the horses of eighteenth century transportation sysems).

Stopping the use of all fossil fuels would kill most of the world’s population.  All human activity is enabled by energy supply and limited by materials science.  Human population growth accelerated when animal power and wind power were abandoned because the greater enegy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.  Our present energy supply is provided by nuclear power and fossil fuels with significant contributions from hydropower and geothermal power.  There is little possibility of increased use of hydropower and geothermal power, and the laws of physics decree that return to wind, animal and solar energies cannot displace much fossil fuel usage.  Only expansion of nuclear power could significantly displace use of fossil fuels and that displacement would not be much because there are limits to the uses of energy only available from the end of a wire.

[Brian G Valentine]

My nomination is an article by the well-known scientific illiterate George Monbiot, which is published here http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/07/29/meltdown/ 

Right off the bat we have the following unprecidented assertion:  "Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse." 

And then it only gets better: 

"Climate change is perhaps the gravest calamity our species has ever encountered. Its impact dwarfs that of any war, any plague, any famine we have confronted so far. It makes genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering. A car is now more dangerous than a gun; flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse. The rich are at play in the world’s killing fields." 

Never mind that half of the world in a temperate zone HAS TO burn coal or oil or gas to stay alive when the weather gets cold. 

Never mind that no one living in a temperate zone could possibly gather enough wood or dry grass to keep themselves alive during an autumn or winter. 

Never mind that Moonbat himself advocates a life equivalent to that of a Neanderthal in perpetuity for those living in moderade zones of Africa, China, India. 

Moonbattiness can afford an automobile and computers and a livable home by writing his atrocious and hateful slop. 

Moonbat is WORSE than a child molester. 

[Willis]

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants.

According to Al Gore, "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration[...]"

Never mind the blatant disregard for civil liberties, foolish foreign policy, and unconstitutional government bailouts that began under the Bush administration and persist under the Obama administration, young people should express indignation over unsubstantiated scare stories. How utterly ridiculous. 

[Brian G Valentine]

heh heh - these are the same groups that protested nuke power three decades ago, and wanted to "eliminate" chlorine from the periodic table of elements two decades ago. 

They've had remarkable success over the years. 

[Rodmoly]

Here is my contribution;  http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4626

It wasn't hard to find , being the very first entry in John Brignall's "wam list".

There are hundreds and hundreds of ridiculous articles like this appearing constantly in all areas of the media.

If Moonbat is looking for bullshit then he need look no further than the endless farcical claims of things caused by
global warming.

[Editor]

My response to Moonbat's supposition that there are only 3 types of climate change deniers:
Posted by Editor for Craig A Lindberg

Actually, there is a fourth kind of climate change denier, and this type is far more common than the other three.

This kind is primarily interested in money and power and knows that the fear of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the hot ticket.

This kind denies the existence of any evidence contrary AGW theory despite the fact that it continues to accumulate every day.

This type denies that the “scientific” work supporting AGW is anything less than the gospel truth despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

This type denies that the scientific method should be followed in climate research.

This type denies that computer models are NOT scientific evidence.

This type denies that the computer models have NOT been able to predict the future with any meaningful level of accuracy.

This type denies that computer model predictions have NOT improved over time.

This type denies that scientific fraud such as the Mann “hockey stick” has taken place by other type 4 deniers.

This type denies the fact that we don’t even know how to measure the average global temperature (or even agree on which of the many current measurements to use) let alone know what it should be.

This type denies that the geologic record suggests that there is nothing unusual about our current climate.

This type denies that the planet has not warmed in the past decade and deny that that implies there is at least one variable more important than CO2.

This type denies that the ice anomaly is increasing at both poles.

This type denies the fact that the science of climate change is not settled and the fact that the debate is not over.

This type denies the fact that they are often paid several orders of magnitude more for their denial than any other type of denier.

This type denies that regulating carbon amounts to the biggest power grab in the history of the world.

The fourth type of climate denier is far more insidious than the other three. It is their denial that is poised to bring about real catastrophe.

[livingwill]

My nomination is an article by the well-known scientific illiterate George Monbiot, which is published here http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/07/29/meltdown/ 

Right off the bat we have the following unprecidented assertion:  "Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse." 

And then it only gets better: 

"Climate change is perhaps the gravest calamity our species has ever encountered. Its impact dwarfs that of any war, any plague, any famine we have confronted so far. It makes genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering. A car is now more dangerous than a gun; flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse. The rich are at play in the world’s killing fields." 

Never mind that half of the world in a temperate zone HAS TO burn coal or oil or gas to stay alive when the weather gets cold. 

Never mind that no one living in a temperate zone could possibly gather enough wood or dry grass to keep themselves alive during an autumn or winter. 

Never mind that Moonbat himself advocates a life equivalent to that of a Neanderthal in perpetuity for those living in moderade zones of Africa, China, India. 

Moonbattiness can afford an automobile and computers and a livable home by writing his atrocious and hateful slop. 

Moonbat is WORSE than a child molester. 

Agreed, since he wrote this on a computer he is a real hypocrite.

[livingwill]

Here is my contribution;  http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4626

It wasn't hard to find , being the very first entry in John Brignall's "wam list".

There are hundreds and hundreds of ridiculous articles like this appearing constantly in all areas of the media.

If Moonbat is looking for bullshit then he need look no further than the endless farcical claims of things caused by
global warming.

Oh no, we have to stop GW or our kids will have more zits!

[TQM38a]

Not being sufficiently versed in the AGW world, other than knowing enough to know it's complete bs, I won't put in any entry.  But for those here who are extremely well versed in debunking AGW, one might want to consider using that idiot "Hockey stick" paper and Steve McIntyre's complete destruction of that product from hell.(If one hasn't already)  From what I gathered, McIntyre got the actual raw data and went to work.(http://www.climateaudit.org/)  His analysis apparently gives a whole new meaning to "keeping your stick on the ice."   Good luck.

[JohnWho]

Hey TQM38a - Welcome to the board.

You might like to read Richard S. Courtney's post, dated October 05, 2009, 02:04:26 PM, regarding the infamous Hockey Stick graphic and data, h e r e.

[LarryOldtimer]

TQM, "debunk" is a much better term to use than "falsification".  In order to falsify a theory, there has to be a real theory to falsify.

[O2guy]

December 7th CNN special on climate change, "TRICK or TRUTH"....

(part 2)  Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer	DQ | by Aeva

After an introductory comment that the evidence for global warming from mankind's greenhouse gas emissions is overwhelming Campbell Brown asked Princeton's Michael Oppenheimer (formerly with Environmental Defense) "What is the most persuasive piece of evidence..."  He did not answer this question. He simply replied that "...the connection between greenhouses gases, like CO2, carbon dioxide and global warming is as solid as the link between smoking and lung cancer..."

If not a misrepresentation of information about climate change, it certainly qualifies as a clever "TRICK" at an evasion of the "TRUTH". The overwhelming evidence is almost all inference from computer model simulations. Overwhelming, but hardly "persuasive".

[Editor]

Moonbat has posted his winner:

Winner of climate change denial's premier award revealed

John Tomlinson, the Michigan Mauler, wins the one and only Christopher Booker prize for falsehoods about global warming


Now we need to choose ours, suggestions for the voting lineup in comments please: