Political Correctness Defined

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up poop by the clean end.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Political Correctness Defined

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    Or be “easily washed off” downtown business store fronts and into the watershed.

  2. Tina says:

    Sanitary insanity in a sea of excrement?

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    That is what a principle member of the Chico City Council “Sustainability Task Force” said. The same CSU faculty jerk who called Anthony Watts a “Koch whore” on his Facebook page.

    These are the people we are dealing with.

  4. Tina says:

    I noticed the administration was out creating news with a phony bologna warming scare report this morning.

    My engineer husband did some calculating last night and estimated that to raise the ocean 12 feet it would take 7000 trillion cubic feet of melt.

    The summer season simply isn’t that long, darling!

    (I’m watching “The Women,” 1939).

    The greenie left extremists are not only crazy, they are extremely unethical (Liars).

    I imagine the guy at CSU can’t stand the world wide recognition and following that Anthony Watts and WWWT has.

    Makes me smile real big!

  5. Libby says:

    There is no “clean end” to the racist xenophobia prevalent on this blog. Political correctness will never come into it.

    Why would you think it could ever be so?

  6. Chris says:

    Tina: “I noticed the administration was out creating news with a phony bologna warming scare report this morning.”

    I notice you received your dishonest right-wing talking points this morning.

    The administration was not “creating news.” The body behind the climate report you refer to is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to release a report every four years due to a mandate that was passed by Congress under the first President Bush.

    The “phony bologna warming scare” is a report compiled by over 200 climate scientists.

    Forgive me if I trust their conclusions over the meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is paid by the Heartland Institute to lie about climate change in the same way they’ve paid others to lie about second-hand smoke, and your engineer husband.

    What you fail to notice could fill a library. Keep smilin’.

  7. Tina says:

    it couldn’t possibly be true that these so called scientists have perpetrated scare tactics to get government grants, to create business investment opportunities, to manipulate policy and law within nations, and to move the nations toward the new world order the radical progressives have dreamed of for decades (total control). Naw…they wouldn’t purposely manipulate data so as to make their scarey arguments seem true…that would be UNETHICAL. They wouldn’t attempt manipulate and change the meaning behind the scientific method or smear the reputation of the science community in pursuit of progressive total control.

    It isn’t Anthony Watts you should fear, Chris. It is all of the real scientist who know what they are talking about who refute not only the phony science but the political scare tactics that drive the entire movement. Pathetic!

    The body may be compelled by law to report…they are not compelled by law to LIE.

    The President likewise is not compelled to hide behind their lies and create scarey headlines or to try to change the narrative so that the failures of his party vanish from the pages of the news prior to the next election.

  8. Tina says:

    Dewey can the crap or we’ll send you back to your tree.

  9. Chris says:

    Libby: “There is no “clean end” to the racist xenophobia prevalent on this blog. Political correctness will never come into it.”

    But Libby, you contradict yourself. Political correctness, by its current definition, means calling out racism and xenophobia. It is much better and more civil to let these tendencies go unchecked, because accusing someone of racism is the absolute worst thing you can do, far worse than actually saying or doing racist things. Unless someone is wearing a white hood and riding horseback throwing molotov cocktails through Harlem, then you shouldn’t accuse them of racism.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    El Stupido strikes again!

  11. Chris says:

    Tina: “it couldn’t possibly be true that these so called scientists have perpetrated scare tactics to get government grants, to create business investment opportunities, to manipulate policy and law within nations, and to move the nations toward the new world order the radical progressives have dreamed of for decades (total control). Naw…they wouldn’t purposely manipulate data so as to make their scarey arguments seem true…that would be UNETHICAL. They wouldn’t attempt manipulate and change the meaning behind the scientific method or smear the reputation of the science community in pursuit of progressive total control.”

    Well, certainly, it’s possible.

    But that has nothing to do with your false claim that the president was “creating news” by releasing the report, which they are legally required to do.

    “It isn’t Anthony Watts you should fear, Chris.”

    I do not fear him.

    “It is all of the real scientist who know what they are talking about who refute not only the phony science but the political scare tactics that drive the entire movement. Pathetic!”

    And…which scientists would those be, exactly? If they are so worthy of being feared, I’d like to know their names.

    “The body may be compelled by law to report…they are not compelled by law to LIE.”

    Well, neither are you, and yet you still feel the need to do it all the time.

    You’ve shown zero evidence that anyone involved in the report has lied about anything.

    “The President likewise is not compelled to hide behind their lies and create scarey headlines”

    Again, this is nonsense. The president didn’t “create headlines” by releasing a report that he is legally mandated to release.

    It’s one thing that you said this the first time; you could hide behind ignorance then. But now that you are repeating it, after the truth has already been delivered to you on a silver platter, you are proving that you are not merely ignorant, but dishonest.

  12. Chris says:

    Dewey, I hope it was clear to you that my comments regarding racism and political correctness were satirical.

  13. Pie Guevara says:

    Re El Stupido’s “If someone makes blatant racist statements it is a citizens right to comment, call them out, but not wise to be as blatantly ignorant back to them.

    See the disgusting negro burner racist Chris’ comment “I’ll be the first to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”

    Granted, Chris left out burning and lynching. I suppose we all should be thankful for that.

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/04/29/newly-released-email-ties-white-house-benghazi-talking-points/

  14. Tina says:

    Dewey a debate might be fun if you could stick to one subject and were willing to use facts. I’m afraid your manic mind couldn’t do either.

  15. Tina says:

    Chris: “But that has nothing to do with your false claim that the president was “creating news” by releasing the report, which they are legally required to do.”

    The President isn’t legally required to comment. It was my opinion, which I believe I am still allowed.

    “If they are so worthy of being feared, I’d like to know their names.”

    Not at all surprised you have forgotten the world renowned, award winning PHD who is one of the many signatories to the letter that opposes false theories passed off as fact in their names (My words not his).

    Wikipedia has a list of names with various positions:

    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]

    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[20]
    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[21]
    Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[22]
    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
    Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
    Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
    Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
    Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
    Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
    Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[48]
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[51]
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
    Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[57]
    George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
    Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
    Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
    Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
    Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
    Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
    Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
    Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]

    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]
    Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]
    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

    Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer explains why the Polar Vortex has nothing to do with C02 in the atmosphere. Scroll down for links to two other pertinent articles:

    Prominent Scientist Happer Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ – ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’

    Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”

    Dismissing these distinguished scientists as “climate deniers” is really stupid but indicative of the lefts adolescent attitude when challenged.

    Gotta run…back later

  16. Chris says:

    Pie, you are not an idiot. Who does it benefit for you to pretend to be?

    Tina: “The President isn’t legally required to comment. It was my opinion, which I believe I am still allowed.”

    It wasn’t at all clear from your writing that you were criticizing the president for commenting on the report. Now that I understand that is what you were saying, can you explain to me what exactly was wrong with the president’s comments? You seem to be arguing that the president was wrong to comment at all, which is absurd.

    “Not at all surprised you have forgotten the world renowned, award winning PHD who is one of the many signatories to the letter that opposes false theories passed off as fact in their names (My words not his).”

    I think we’ve misunderstood each other at some point; I meant to ask you to name scientists whom you believe are guilty of lying in order to support the AGW theory. You’ve made many accusations against climate scientists here, and I would like to know which scientists in particular you think are in on this vast conspiracy.

  17. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #19 Chris : “Pie, you are not an idiot. Who does it benefit for you to pretend to be?”

    Chris, you are a vile racist idiot, who does it benefit for you to pretend not to be?

  18. Libby says:

    Hi, Chris …

    I was actually trying to reclaim the term for our side. (Though there’s no doing a thing like that around here in two sentences.)

    We should not let them use PC as a pejorative, deriding those who dare to call them on their savagery. To be PC is to uphold the highest standards of public decorum and a civil society.

    And a bigot is a bigot.

    And we must not let them cloud these issues.

  19. Pie Guevara says:

    Chris The Liar “Anthony Watts, who is paid by the Heartland Institute to lie about climate change”

    A bald faced lie from the bald faced liar scum bag Chris. What a despicable creep you are Chris.

  20. Tina says:

    Chris: “You seem to be arguing that the president was wrong to comment at all, which is absurd.”

    You argued that “they” were “legally required to release the report.”

    I simply said the President is not legally required to comment on it. His doing so, in my opinion, is an election cycle move to use the bully pulpit to create news and try to change the news narrative to what he believes (wrongly) will be a winner for Democrats.

    “I meant to ask you to name scientists whom you believe are guilty of lying in order to support the AGW theory. You’ve made many accusations against climate scientists here, and I would like to know which scientists in particular you think are in on this vast conspiracy.”

    So now your side is calling it a theory? For years it’s been sold as “settled science”. That alone constituted a huge fraud.

    Science is NEVER settled in circles where scientists with integrity practice in their chosen fields. Scientists have the ultimate in inquiring minds. Remember, the atom was once thought to be the smallest particle. Now we have seen smaller quarks that move in and out of reality…now you see em, now you don’t.

    The so called “truth” that has been perpetrated on the public, that evil mankind and especially those connected to oil, were killing the planet was political from the start. Any scientist that bought into it, helped to promote it, and/or benefited from it are suspect in my mind. Einsteins they are not!

    Chris we have posted reports that found the hockey stick on which climate models were based was created by falsifying the data to produce the graph. But even before that was exposed claiming “concensus” agreement was fraudulent.

    You are either interested in the truth or you aren’t. I’ll post a few articles that name names or at least show the warming “science” is not supported by all, or even most, scientist but other than that I don’t keep a list in my pocket.

    This scientist demonstrates that its about politics rather than science…scientists love to argue about their evidence and theories:

    NPR, “Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents”

    Peter Gleick is not just any scientist. He got his doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley and won a MacArthur “genius” award. He is also an outspoken proponent of scientific evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.

    And earlier this week, he confessed that he had lied to obtain internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a group that questions to what extent climate change is caused by humans.

    Gleick’s deception has shaken the science community. Meanwhile, the Heartland Institute, whose funders and policies were described in the documents, is planning legal action.

    Forbes, “Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate”

    Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

    Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

    Forbes article, February 2013, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis”

    Web Today, “UN Global Warming Claims Discredited by True Scientific Evidence”

    Speaking before an audience of medical doctors in Las Vegas, the Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D, Senior Staff Physicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, cited numerous examples of evidence proving either gross incompetence or blatant fraud in the UN report on Global Warming. Along with her associate, Dr. Willie Soon Ph.D, also from Harvard-Smithsonian, 2 hours of startling evidence was presented to the audience.

    Titling her presentation “A Climate History of the Earth: the last 1,000 years,” Dr. Baliunas first explained how certain criteria must be met to obtain credible evidence to support any theory. She then went on to cite in one example after another where standard operating procedures were bypassed to obtain a fraudulent set of numbers to appear to make Global Warming seem true, but where the correct study unquestionably proved the opposite.

    One study formulated to present an accurate look at climate in the Northern Hemisphere, frequently had data from Tasmania and New Zealand (Southern Hemisphere) inserted just to make the numbers add up. Tree ring studies were used attempting to support temperature variations, when more accurate studies of the specie of tree used shows that tree ring size reacted to moisture, not temperature. Small sections of historical temperature readings were selected to prove a warming trend when the longer term numbers were showing a cooling trend. A one year fluke of El Nino is the only year in another formula that created a warming trend. However, shifting the study one year either side shows a cooling trend.

    Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Soon cited more credible evidence that the earth has gone through normal temperature cycles. In the last thousand years, there was a notable warming trend during medieval time, and a mini ice age around the 1700’s. Noting the Sun to be essentially our planets sole source of thermal energy, it is the cause of any thermal cycles experienced by our planet. CO2 levels, water vapor, aerosols and all the criteria used by the UN to try to halt industrial progress have no credible evidence to support the claims. The UN conveniently ignores any research done to true scientific standards and quite obviously has a political agenda of discrimination when choosing numbers to support their fantasies.

    During a Q & A time at the end of their presentation. The term “Children Playing Scientist” was used to describe all the studies offered by the United Nations. Unfortunately, this is an insult to children. The question of honesty must come into play. When numbers are knowingly changed or misapplied, that is fraud. A child might not know which number to apply to what study, but UN financed studies are revealing themselves to be the actions of corrupt marketing people with a political agenda that surpasses any level of conscience or morality.

    Specific information regarding any speakers at the convention or tapes of the actual lectures can be obtained at: http://www.oism.org/ddp/

    The New American:

    Multiple U.S. government bureaucracies including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are again being accused of inappropriately manipulating temperature data — or “adjusting” it, as officials at the agencies implicated in the scandal put it — to show global warming. While the accusations are not new, the latest scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at Real Science, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.

    Numerous scientists and experts confirmed Goddard’s explosive findings, but in separate responses to The New American, both NOAA and NASA attempted to downplay the significance of the accusations. The major problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records of federal bureaucracies relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.

    “Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.” Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.

  21. Tina says:

    Libby: “To be PC is to uphold the highest standards of public decorum and a civil society.”

    If only that were true.

    To be PC is to uphold a set of rules that require dishonest and preferential treatment, speech and behaviors. These rules can change at the drop of a hat when a new “offense” is imagined or a new “cause” is created. To be PC one must become a bigot because it relies heavily on division rather than the false narrative of “inclusion”.

    Good manners were once the method used to “uphold the highest standards of public decorum and a civil society.” They applied to everyone and when breached were recognized instantly.

    The PC crowd tossed good manners out in the halls of Berkley in the sixties. the so-called psychology majors of the time eventually pushed them out further with the theory that children should be “free to express themselves however they wished and not disciplined because it would destroy their natural creativity. Later that evolved into destroying right and wrong and personal responsibility with the notion of “being appropriate”. Ironically this was probably borrowed from the Buddhists without the requisite epiphany of consciousness.

    “And a bigot is a bigot.”

    And every leftist that plays the class and race warfare game is one! Nothing “cloudy” about that.

  22. Libby says:

    “To be PC is to uphold a set of rules that require dishonest and preferential treatment, speech and behaviors.”

    Examples?

    Tell us what you mean.

  23. Libby says:

    I didn’t expect any examples from you, though I can think of lots.

    You may honestly believe that “greaser” is a legitimate component of civil discourse, but us PCers, we just ain’t havin’ it.

  24. Chris says:

    “Forbes article, February 2013, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis””

    Tina, this is at least the fourth time you have cited this dishonest article, which lies in the headline and continues to lie throughout the entire piece. The survey did NOT find that a “majority of scientists” were “skeptical of [the] global warming crisis;” in fact, according to the authors of the study as well as basic common sense, the survey could not possibly have found that, because they only polled a small sampling of engineers from Alberta, and polled zero climate scientists.

    I will not waste my time by once again recounting all of the lies told by James Taylor, another paid Heartland hitman. You can simply revisit my responses to your previous attempts to spread this lie here:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/08/18/ofa-targets-climate-denier-republicans-fails-miserably/

    And here:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/09/23/ccss-common-core-marxist-propaganda-program-indoctrinate-americas-children/

    Or you can simply read the comments underneath the article, where several commenters, including the authors of the survey themselves, call out James Taylor for blatantly misrepresenting their work.

    I should also point out that in none of our previous discussions have you ever acknowledged that Taylor lied in his article, even though you have been presented with indisputable proof that he did. One does not have to be even remotely scientifically literate to understand how James Taylor’s summary of the survey is in no way close to what the survey actually found. I asked you repeatedly to engage with the points raised by the authors of the survey that Taylor misrepresented, and you not only refused, you called me an “arrogant” “authoritarian” and a “tyrant” for asking you to address the accuracy of the misleading article that you posted in order to provide evidence for your position. As if that was an unreasonable demand.

    Since then you have repeatedly pushed the same article, with no seeming awareness that it has already been proven to be a steaming pile of lies.

    Because you have shown that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of how to read and understand scientific data–and you reject all attempts by others to help you understand even the basic, most obvious points, such as the clear misrepresentation in Taylor’s article–your opinions on the topic of climate change are worth nothing. You claim that the hockey stick data was forged, but you literally have no way of knowing that. You believe it because you want to, and because people you trust tell you to believe it. But given that you trust people like James Taylor, a proven liar as I have repeatedly demonstrated, and as the scientists he claimed agreed with him have also shown, your judgment on this issue is obviously terrible, and nothing you say about this topic should be taken seriously by anyone who even wants to understand basic science.

    When you can acknowledge the proven fact that Taylor lied in his piece, and promise not to cite that dishonest article again, we will discuss this issue further.

  25. Chris says:

    “Pie Guevara: Chris The Liar “Anthony Watts, who is paid by the Heartland Institute to lie about climate change”

    A bald faced lie from the bald faced liar scum bag Chris. What a despicable creep you are Chris.”

    1) Get help with your Tourettes and 2) you’re wrong.

    “The Heartland Institute published Watts’ preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.[12] Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.[55]

    Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, “devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public.”[56][57][58] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[55] Watts explained the funding by stating, “Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.”[59][60] and added, “They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.”[59][61]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#cite_note-Gascoyne-55

    I accept your apology, and we can still be friends.

  26. Libby says:

    And there’s new news just today. Antarctica is melting, faster than we thought, and there’s no stopping it either. Any long-range planning should not include Miami.

Comments are closed.