{"id":2903,"date":"2008-07-21T05:22:31","date_gmt":"2008-07-21T10:22:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=2903"},"modified":"2008-07-21T05:22:31","modified_gmt":"2008-07-21T10:22:31","slug":"no-one-expects-the-spanish-inquisition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=2903","title":{"rendered":"No-One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!"},"content":{"rendered":"

The other day, we noted that the “universal consensus” behind Man-Made Global Warming is, er, not really\u00a0universal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And over at American Thinker, we also see that it’s not consensual<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
First, the editors of APS newsletter Physics and Society <\/em>invited [man-made global warming skeptic]\u00a0Lord Monckton to present them a paper explaining his disagreement with the AGW findings of the IPCC.\u00a0 And the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher happily accepted the offer, submitting a brilliant, must read article<\/a> excoriating the UN lapdogs, both for their deliberately obscured methods and their gross exaggerations of green house gas impact on global temperatures.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But once Lord Monckton’s paper started getting attention?<\/p>\n

\n
But a few days later, Monckton’s paper was suddenly and inexplicably branded with these scurrilous prefacing words, emphasized in red:<\/div>\n

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

An outlandish disclaimer, particularly considering that the paper had been reviewed by one of APS’s own scientists, and all requested clarifications were duly incorporated by the author.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words – if you can’t beat ’em, lie about ’em.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Watch for the “scientists” of the “Nuremburg Trials for the Skeptics!” set to get even more outrageous.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The other day, we noted that the “universal consensus” behind Man-Made Global Warming is, er, not really\u00a0universal. And over at American Thinker, we also see that it’s not consensual: First, the editors of APS newsletter Physics and Society invited [man-made global warming skeptic]\u00a0Lord Monckton to present them a paper explaining his disagreement with the AGW […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}