Amazongate

[GostHacked]

I see that no one who has commented here has actually read the article I posted....how typical. The article is about the World wildlife Fund and how they bitch about corporations, yet they stand to profit billions through the carbon trading scam. WWF's ceo in the US gets paid almost half a million dollars.

When it comes to Booker, I guess we have to believe the the smear campaign of the the fine folks at Greenpace. That's all wyldo does, just repeat what some eco-fascist has already said. Wyldo's ignorance is laughable.

Wlydo .. thanks Lukin, that made my day!!

Edited February 21, 2011 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

I see that no one who has commented here has actually read the article I posted....how typical. The article is about the World wildlife Fund and how they bitch about corporations, yet they stand to profit billions through the carbon trading scam. WWF's ceo in the US gets paid almost half a million dollars.

Hi Lukin,

I did look at it, but as I have posted on another thread today, most people here aren't so gullible to have their opinions changed by suggestions of conspiracy...

[waldo]

Booker is a dishonest moron. This is the guy that insisted that asbestos wasn't dangerous, even after it became clear that he actually had no idea what asbestos was. Fans of Booker, to my mind, are halfwits by definition. The Telegraph still gives the guy space, for some reason, perhaps out of editorial guilt.

oh ya, bigtime! Booker, with his writing partner/cohort North, have become bookend climate change denier "journalists" at the tabloid Telegraph... they were regular go-to's of the ShadyPractices guy throughout earlier MLW climate change related threads. Of course, you nailed one of Booker's other phases of being, as you highlight, a 'dishonest moron'... where he long touted asbestos as harmless, as nothing more than the chemical equivalency to "talcum powder". And who can resist Booker's scandalous claims that deny any link between bovine "mad cow" disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans... or his denial of a link between passive smoking and lung cancer... or Booker's assertion that Darwinian evolutionary theory is based upon nothing more than "blind faith". Oh ya, Booker is lukin's kind of credible "journalist".

as I mention Booker's writing partner/cohort North... and since lukin's linked to Booker article (Amazongate II) plays off the original fallacious "gate meme", "Amazongate", while mentioning some of the same names/players involved... it's worth highlighting the original source for Amazongate was actually North. Of course, the original mainstream hype around Amazongate resulted when a competing British tabloid (the Times) picked up North's original bullshit and ran with it (ala one lying, deceitful "journalist", Jonathan Leake). A twisted web these denier "journalists" weave!!!

ah yes! One of Shady's favoured go-to British tabloid "journalists", Jonathan Leake from the Sunday Times, has finally issued the retraction over his so-called Amazongate fabrication. Of course, the damage was already done - the standard denier cares not of facts... the intent is simply to cast doubt and uncertainty. Into the mainstream went Leake's fabrication, but meanwhile, the Sunday Times retraction sits behind an online paywall!

Leakegate: A retraction

another day... another Shady go-to of his favourite British tabloid "journalist", "

Jonathan Leake

"... looks like the Shady "intellectual dishonesty" continues.

even outside the climate change related debate, we recently experienced firsthand the way the British tabloid press handled coverage of the Vancouver Olympics... it's no surprise Shady would find solace in linking to and parroting anything - anything - the British tabloids print. Shady has no ethics - no morality - no honesty.

British Newspapers Make Things Up

the backlash against the British tabloids is building; interested parties are collectively gathering the evidence against the British tabloid "journalists"... be they

David Rose

,

Piers Akerman

... or Shady's favourite -

Jonathan Leake

one of those bloggers, Tim Lambert (amongst others), has recently started to catalogue the fabrications of Jonathan Leake. If you're not familiar with Tim Lambert, he's a legitimate Australian scientist, recently of note involved in demolishing the denier poster-boy Monckton during a much touted/publicized debate in Australia.

The dishonesty, the lies, the fabrication of Jonathan Leake... Shady's most favoured go-to British tabloid journalist:

- Shady's most recent display of his "intellectual dishonesty"... concerning Jonathan Leake's fabrication concerning tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes):

Leakegate + The Australian's War on Science 46

- the original

Leakegate

(re: Amazon forest)

-

Leakegate scandal grows

-

Leakegate scandal gets bigger

-

Leakegate: the case for fraud

-

Journalismgate

-

Leakegate: Jonathan Leake caught misrepresenting another scientist

-

Leakegate: Leake verballed Richard Dawkins

-

Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

-

Leakegate: Yes, Leake was responsible for that bogus story about the carbon footprint of Google

-

Leakegate: How Jonathan Leake concocted 'Africagate'

-

Leakegate: "not based on any research"

[lukin]

oh ya, bigtime! Booker, with his writing partner/cohort North, have become bookend climate change denier "journalists" at the tabloid Telegraph... they were regular go-to's of the ShadyPractices guy throughout earlier MLW climate change related threads. Of course, you nailed one of Booker's other phases of being, as you highlight, a 'dishonest moron'... where he long touted asbestos as harmless, as nothing more than the chemical equivalency to "talcum powder". And who can resist Booker's scandalous claims that deny any link between bovine "mad cow" disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans... or his denial of a link between passive smoking and lung cancer... or Booker's assertion that Darwinian evolutionary theory is based upon nothing more than "blind faith". Oh ya, Booker is lukin's kind of credible "journalist".

as I mention Booker's writing partner/cohort North... and since lukin's linked to Booker article (Amazongate II) plays off the original fallacious "gate meme", "Amazongate", while mentioning some of the same names/players involved... it's worth highlighting the original source for Amazongate was actually North. Of course, the original mainstream hype around Amazongate resulted when a competing British tabloid (the Times) picked up North's original bullshit and ran with it (ala one lying, deceitful "journalist", Jonathan Leake). A twisted web these denier "journalists" weave!!!

Does anyone else here just ignore waldo's massive, useless block quotes. The amount of time he takes to post garbage that no one reads is laughable. :lol:

[waldo]

ya see, lil' buddy... it's as much as self-documenting exercise as anything... as with everything, the prerogative is there to read - or not. I'm as much interested in keeping an accounting of the most egregious types... like yourself. The preceding post was really a nice tidy way to align both "gate memes", the original "Amazongate", now followed up by your parroting of Booker's so-called "Amazongate II". That I included both indirect and direct associations between the two memes, is a bonus - ya think?

as I highlighted, Booker is clearly your kind of credible "journalist".

[lukin]

ya see, lil' buddy... it's as much as self-documenting exercise as anything... as with everything, the prerogative is there to read - or not. I'm as much interested in keeping an accounting of the most egregious types... like yourself. The preceding post was really a nice tidy way to align both "gate memes", the original "Amazongate", now followed up by your parroting of Booker's so-called "Amazongate II". That I included both indirect and direct associations between the two memes, is a bonus - ya think?

as I highlighted, Booker is clearly your kind of credible "journalist".

i don't think he's any worse than Greenpeace, or the crap that you cite from sourcewatch.

[GostHacked]

ya see, lil' buddy... it's as much as self-documenting exercise as anything... as with everything, the prerogative is there to read - or not. I'm as much interested in keeping an accounting of the most egregious types... like yourself. The preceding post was really a nice tidy way to align both "gate memes", the original "Amazongate", now followed up by your parroting of Booker's so-called "Amazongate II". That I included both indirect and direct associations between the two memes, is a bonus - ya think?

as I highlighted, Booker is clearly your kind of credible "journalist".

*yawn*

[waldo]

i don't think he's any worse than Greenpeace, or the crap that you cite from sourcewatch.

of course, it doesn't matter what you've now read from both Michael Hardner and ToadBrother concerning Booker/his writings... of course, it doesn't matter that Booker has absolutely zero credibility. Of course, you ignore the references to Booker's other ridiculous (and soundly refuted) positions. You ignore it all... because you can. As for your latest protestations concerning my linkage to the sourcewatch article on Patrick Moore (within the other concurrently running thread), as stated there:

feel free to refute anything the Sourcewatch article states... waiting...

[waldo]

*yawn*

back at ya... is there a problem - did your last lil' rubbin sting, just a might?

[lukin]

Wlydo .. thanks Lukin, that made my day!!

Your very welcome, GH.

[waldo]

lukin... of course, you could address world governments signing off on the recent Cancun COP16 agreement on land use/deforestation... in relation to the quite dated Booker POS tabloid article you initially linked to. Or... you could continue your Booker tabloid parroting, accepting to his most significant credibility gap... on just about everything/anything... or... you could continue your strawman position against the WWF. Certainly, your choice!

hey buddy... that's a really dated article from Booker - do you have anything more recent, perhaps his meltdown reaction to world governments signing the recent Cancun COP16 agreements, particularly with respect to land use/deforestation - oh my!

...deforestation... re: Cancun COP16 agreements concerning land use and deforestation... perhaps you might like to comment on this press release from the UN-REDD Programme (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)):

The UN-REDD Programme, a collaborative initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), commends the great effort and political will shown at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 16th Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP16) in Cancun, Mexico, which has resulted in an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+).

.

.

Tropical forests store more than half of all carbon found in terrestrial vegetation worldwide and contain at least two thirds of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, making REDD+ a critical component in the global fight against climate change.

The COP16 agreement on REDD+ is expected to revitalize and increase funding flows to support REDD+ readiness and invigorate donor pledges for REDD+ that now amount to close to US$5 billion for early actions until 2012.

"REDD+ means that farmers and rural people in developing countries can now be compensated for the climate services they provide for us all, helping us to avoid dangerous climate change. We will need investments in sustainable agriculture both to reduce pressure on forest land and, primarily, to secure food for everyone.

[lukin]

whaaa! It's like shooting lukin fish in a barrel! lukin really likes to invest in tabloid "journalists", particularly the denier type... lukin's aversion to real science/scientists is well documented/understood.

Here's a comment from waldo's source, George Monbiot.

"Everytime someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.

From the Guardian - December 5, 2007

Now I understand why you are way out there, waldo, Having Monbiot as a hero would drive anyone to insanity.

Edited February 22, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

lukin... is there a reason you continue to evade the repeated and pointed question/request to have you address your linked to Booker POS article in lieu of the Cancun COP16 agreements on land use/deforestation?

as for your repeated attempts to deflect by attacking the Guardian's Monbiot... have at er! I have no particular affinity to any journalist... I'll simply use whatever fits my purposes. In this particular case, the one you're most perturbed about... apparently, you take exception to my linking to a Monbiot article cataloging the long history of your tabloid boy Booker's failed writings. Now, if you're going to parrot the oft repeated meme about the Monbiot quote you offer, I expect you won't mind if we go right to the source, hey?

Those who hate environmentalism try, in the spirit of throwing everything they can at it, to associate it with violent tendencies. These attempts are generally desperate. For example, a persistent fable, spread across hundreds of climate change denial sites, is that I would like to drown the executives of the airline companies.

Here's what I said in 2006:

"There was one proposal in Sir Rod Eddington's report to the Treasury with which, when I first read it, I wholeheartedly agreed. He insists that "the transport sector, including aviation, should meet its full environmental costs". Quite right too: every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned. Reading on, I realised that this is not exactly what he had in mind."

As anyone who isn't being wilfully stupid can see, this comment was ironic. [lukin exception noted!] My point, as I went on to explain, is that the costs of global warming are not simply financial, and that spending money doesn't buy back human lives. My article was prompted by a concern for human life, rather than a desire to end it.

But the opposition is so short of genuine examples of greens advocating violence that this is repeatedly cited as evidence that we're advocating mass murder. It plays well because it reinforces another story: that environmentalists are anti-human - they love the natural world and hate the people who infest it.

[lukin]

lukin... is there a reason you continue to evade the repeated and pointed question/request to have you address your linked to Booker POS article in lieu of the Cancun COP16 agreements on land use/deforestation?

as for your repeated attempts to deflect by attacking the Guardian's Monbiot... have at er! I have no particular affinity to any journalist... I'll simply use whatever fits my purposes. In this particular case, the one you're most perturbed about... apparently, you take exception to my linking to a Monbiot article cataloging the long history of your tabloid boy Booker's failed writings. Now, if you're going to parrot the oft repeated meme about the Monbiot quote you offer, I expect you won't mind if we go right to the source, hey?

Waldo the spin doctor continues to spin. I got you!!! :lol:

[waldo]

hey now... your latest quote was quite selective... you left out the best part... the part where, as you say, Monbiot got you! Enjoy...

As anyone who isn't being wilfully stupid can see, this comment was ironic. [

lukin exception noted!

]

again, as the pissant you are, you seem quite content to simply partake in an insult-fest... rather than actually engage in any semblance of argument. You keep avoiding any/all challenges thrown your way... like:

- the repeated challenges made to your linked bullshit Booker article, referenced ala the lukinWay™ ... is there a, uhhh... problem that keeps you from responding?

lukin... is there a reason you continue to evade the repeated and pointed question/request to have you address your linked to Booker POS article in lieu of the Cancun COP16 agreements on land use/deforestation?

or like:

- the repeated challenges made to you in the other concurrently running thread where the limit of your "thoughtful" reach extended to a simplistic, trivial questioning of how a name originated! Wow! ... is there a, uhhh... problem that keeps you from responding?

c'mon lukin... I have several past posts within various MLW climate change related threads that speak to Greenland ice-sheet melt... what say you? C'mon, extend yourself... reach beyond the trivialities of your OP's questioning name origination! C'mon, let's see your best denialism rail against the current state of melting Greenland ice-sheets. I mean, after all, you did start this thread in the, "Health, Science and Technology" forum. C'mon lukin... surely you have... more... don't let kimmy down now, hey?

...so, uh, how about those glaciers?

I trust that's not a rhetorical question, hey? I trust, in keeping with the Health, Science and Technology associations of this forum, the OP would respond to your question... you know, elevate the thread's standing to something other than simplistically and comically asking about the name of this, 'autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark'