Would that be the same Chris Horner from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute), the Heartland Institute (funded by Exxon and other oil companies), Frontiers of Freedom (funded by Exxon), the National Center for Policy Analysis (funded by Exxon), the Tech Center (funded by Exxon), the European Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) and the Cooler Heads Coalition (funded by the API and Western Fuels)?
And is it the same Gabriel Calzada from the Centre for a New Europe (funded by Exxon) and the Heartland Institute (funded by Exxon and other oil companies)?
Clearly we should believe every word these two ‘scientists’ are saying. I mean, it’s not like some major corporation could possibly be telling them what to say. Other than Fred Singer I can’t think of a more reliable source.
Of course, the fact that the story has gaping holes in it is of no consequence to the likes of Watts. He has, after all, built a reputation for himself based on lies and distortions so I see no reason why he would feel the need to now start telling the truth.
Yet again Watts and Goddard are furiously back-pedalling and trying to save face in the light of their own self-inflicted humiliation. Instead of admitting that the original article was an outright lie they’re instead trying to justify it as an error. It also begs the question why has the original article not been amended http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/02/artic-sea-ice-extent-update-still-growing/
and why, in attempting to save face, is Goddard including links to other garbage of his such as the irrefutably disproven claims about the 2000’s being the snowiest decade on record http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/
We’ve seen how deniers are prepared to lie and even manipulate their own children in order to try to make a point so it comes as no surprise at all to find they’re now claiming to be the victims of terrorist plots. It does nothing other than to demonstrate how desperate they’ve become and provides pretty conclusive evidence for the fact that they have absolutely no arguments at their disposal to refute the theory of global warming.
One thing which stands out like a sore thumb is the willingness of the ‘skeptics’ to accept every lie uttered by Watts, Goddard and their ilk without question.
I think the truth of the matter is that many deniers wish to be considered as skeptics because this affords them a level of credibility that they don’t deserve and haven’t earned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
This whole episode is hilarious and serves as an illustration of the phenomenal stupidity and perverse corruption of the denier machine.
There was never a bomb threat and it was established at the time by the security expert that the suspect package contained a fuel filter for a car with a wire attached; the package having been incorrectly delivered by a courier firm.
Chris Horner wrote this story of the bomb threat, which he based on reports in the Spanish media. Horner only reprinted part of the original report, completely ignoring the part that explained that the ‘bomb’ had turned out to be a spare part for a car.
There was never a story in the first place and yet Horner, who has the audacity to consider himself a scientist, deliberately and knowingly fabricated a story based on what he knew to be lies.
The lies were then published on the internet and quickly picked up by other deniers, who happily reproduced them with no attempt being made to authenticate the story.
If you go to Watt’s propaganda site you’ll find that the bomb story was posted there on 24th June. Less than half an hour later, on the same site, the genuine facts were explained and have since been explained numerous times over. And yet the original bunch of lies is still there.
Clearly Watts is aware of the lies on his site so why hasn’t he amended or deleted the page? If proof were ever needed that Watts’ isn’t remotely bothered about factual accuracy then this proves the point beyond doubt.
What’s also telling is that the fabricated story has (so far) been reproduced on 153 denier websites, virtually all of which were posted AFTER the story was revealed to be false. Only two sites (Pajamas and the CEI) have had the decency to explain that the story was wrong. Doesn’t that speak volumes for the credibility of the deniers?
Now of course, do you think that this will have any impact at all on the deniers? Will they stop for one moment to question the validity of their sources or will they continue to act as pawns for the propagandists? It doesn’t take a genius to work that one out.
- - - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO BRAVOZULU
It took me about 30 seconds to establish that the story is complete fabrication. All you need to do is to track the story back to it’s source and it’s there for all to see – updates explaining what really happened.
I would have thought it was a prerequisite before passing comment on any subject that the source of the information is validated. Apparently not in the case of deniers and skeptics who, it seems, are only too willing to take anything and everything at face value provided it substantiates their pre-conceived notions.
The fact that Watt’s site has a greater readership than RealClimate is of no consequence whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of people accept that global warming is real and get on with their lives. It’s the skeptics and deniers that trawl through the internet and newspapers looking for any crumb that could support their notion.
I’ve not visited the RealClimate site for months yet I’ve been to Watts’ site on many occasions, I would confidently bet that the same is true of many believers.