Pitman cries poor | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

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:
...
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...
...
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?

BBC News - Economic growth 'cannot continue'

Tom Clougherty, executive director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market think-thank, said Nef's report exhibited "a complete lack of understanding of economics and, indeed, human development".

"It is precisely this economic growth which will lift the poor out of poverty and improve the environmental standards that really matter to people - like clean air and water - in the process, as it has done throughout human history," he told BBC News.

"There's only one good thing I can say for the Nef's report, and that's that it is honest. Its authors admit that they want us to be poorer and to lead more restricted lives for the sake of their faddish beliefs."

The Daily Bayonet » Monday Meltdown: IPCC Undone, MEP Rage and Browning Greens

The global warming hoax is falling apart fast and may already have passed the point of recovery. Credibility is a fine thing until you don’t have any, as the AGW community is finding out.

Add it to the list: AGW causes bigger waves at Heliogenic Climate Change

A major increase in maximum ocean wave heights off the Pacific Northwest in recent decades has forced scientists to re-evaluate how high a “100-year event” might be, and the new findings raise special concerns for flooding, coastal erosion and structural damage.

[Still more dishonesty can save the climate swindle bill?: David "Climate Nuremberg" Roberts] | Grist

It’s worth repeating: the public accepts climate change and wants to address it. That battle is won. All the bloggers and cable TV talkers arguing over the latest scientific pseudo-scandal? They’re only talking to each other. Despite Herculean efforts by greens to educate the public and popularize the issue, most people just aren’t particularly interested in the details of climate change as such. It’s not a top priority.
...
“Cap-and-trade” puts process jargon squarely in the spotlight. Predictably enough, it’s been a disaster. It means nothing to the public, a blank slate to be filled by competing PR campaigns. Greenish politicos are stuck explaining policy details many if not most of them don’t understand, while conservatives quickly inscribed the term with well-established narratives— intrusive government, taxes, socialism, etc.—that resonate with their overall strategy and identity. It was always an unfair fight and it’s only destined to get worse. Allowing cap-and-trade to become the center of the discussion is the greatest green messaging failure of the last decade.