The Dog Ate my Data

So we now have Andy “Hide the Funding” Pitman failing to be able to discuss facts and instead resorting to describing his own absurd version of reality in an ABC interview. He claims scientists for the IPCC receive no funding. Did $63,400 in funding somehow slip your mind Andy during the publicly broadcast interview with the ABC?

Read Andrew Bolt’s article and see Andy fail to mention his funding whilst accusing skeptics of being unemployed and "so well funded". Excuse me Andy, I think your slip is showing.

SOURCE: ANDREW BOLT

PITMAN CRIES POOR

Professor Andy Pitman, an Australian IPCC author, says his side is losing the global warming debate simply because they’re all selfless angels, while the other side are corrupt, deceitful and unemployed conspiracists:

ELEANOR HALL: How much damage then do you think this sort of sloppiness on the part of the IPCC has done?

ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.

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. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.

That explains everything to Pitman’s satisfaction. The absence of any proof for his absurd claims explains everything to the rest of us.

Oh, and here’s a list of Pitman’s grants. My word, but he seems well funded by the warmist lobby. Oddly enough for a man who claims he does his IPCC work “out of hours, voluntarily for no funding”, his long list of grants include these:

1999-01
Australian Greenhouse Office (for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $15,000

2004-7
Australian Greenhouse Office (for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $48,400

Look, it’s just a wild hunch, but might it be that Pitman’s side is losing because the evidence is growing that its arguments are exaggerated or even false?

One would assume that a core ability of a scientist would be to address the facts but instead Andy Pitman falls immediately into schoolboy name calling and bullying and fails totally to address facts. Is this the kind of "scientist" we want representing Australia at taxpayer's expense at the UN? Perhaps indeed he is, afterall, a perfect fit for the IPCC based on the many revealed errors in the 2007 IPCC's AR4 report.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists seem to do an extremely poor job of communicating their arguments to the public. Surely one can be found that doesn't decend into gratuitious name calling in a public broadcast. Perhaps not.

Why are so many of the IPCC “scientists” so misleading and even dishonest? Are there any amongst them that can open their mouths and speak, well, the actual truth for a change?

The evidence is starting to show that the answer to that is no.