Jeb, Boris, Greenpeace Mouthpiece, or whatever your true name is:
I have had my snout in the AGW trough for several because that is where the easy research funds now are. AGW research is very big business and its shills include several NGOs and the Executives of the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society. The shills operate to defend the gravy train that I and many others have boarded. And there is a lot of gravy on the train. Governments are spending more than $5 billion per year on AGW and the US government alone is spending $2 billion per year on it. This does not include the spending by industry (all industry research on AGW is pro-AGW because all industries fear another Brent Spar Incident). And it does not include spending by NGOs that are promoting fear of AGW as a method to ‘rattle their collecting boxes’ at the public.
I am one of the 2000 (or whatever figure is now asserted) ‘UN climate scientists’. I was asked to Peer Review the latest scientific report (AR4) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and the IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, wrote to me to ask me to peer review the IPCC’s recent Synthesis Report.
The above should be all that anybody here needs to know about me. Your personal smears of me are a clear demonstration that you are trying to ‘shoot the messenger’ because you know the statements I have made in this forum are undeniably true.
I will not address your silly disputations of the facts of climate science. Everything I have said in this forum can be very simply checked by its readers and they can judge the veracity of my statements for themselves: all those statements are irrefutable facts that anybody can verify with great ease.
Also, I will not respond to your several personal lies about me. However, you ask me some personal questions that could mislead because they were true in the past. So, for the benefit of others, I will answer those questions.
The assertion that I am – or for several years could have been – a “coal industry lobbyist” is not merely wrong: it is plain daft. Would anybody lobby for an industry that ceased to exist more than a decade ago, or for a journal that had made them redundant? But I was part of British Coal that UK government closed down in 1995, and I did work for CoalTrans International until 2002.
So, to answer you specific personal questions that were:
“Are you not the Richard S Courtney that is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) and was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management (a coal industry union)? Were you not involved in the Leipziq Declaration? Apologies if you are not this Richard S Courtney who is clearly a mouthpiece for the coal industry.”
I was the contributing Technical Editor of CoalTrans International until 2002, and I wrote all the coal science and environmental articles pertaining to coal usage. It is not surprising that I was asked to do this because I authored the chapter on coal in Kempes Engineers Year Book.
Until the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) ceased to exist in 1995 I was its Senior Material Scientist.
I was the Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management (a coal industry union) until 2000.
I ceased all those activities several years ago and I have obtained no monies or support from any of those activities since.
I helped to draft the Leipzig Declaration. It was drafted as a result of the Leipzig Climate Conference where I was invited to present a keynote paper.
I will not answer anymore personal questions from anonymous smear mongers.
Richard
