Maurizio Morabito (aka Omnologos)
Maurizio Morabito is a [self proclaimed] banking consultant, journalist and blogger although on a lowly rung of public exposure and opinion.
Frequently found on the Met Office blog posting opinion and disinformation under blog name Omnologos. His Website / Blog
From a purely logical point of view, AGW (and especially, catastrophic AGW) can almost certainly be disproved using the argument ad providentiam.
That’s a concept I have mentioned sometimes in the past in some part of the web, not under that name of course. Very briefly, it goes like this: philosophically speaking, an interpretation of the world is fallacious when it implies the existence of divine, or divine-like intervention.
And so for example, AGW is logically fallacious as it has providential undertones. In other words, for (catastrophic) AGW to be upon us right now, something akin to a God or gods (or god-like creatures) has/have to be taking care of us. Because for (catastrophic) AGW to be happening, several amazing coincidences must have recently happened:
[66 reasons [and growing] or 66 common fallacies feature as part of his argument on his website]
All in all, belief in AGW implies belief in a highly-improbable series of lucky discoveries, developments and various other incidents to happen (or not to happen) just at the right time. That is called “Providence” and it is strong evidence for the existence of a Divine Being. But since such “evidence” is a contradiction in terms, then for catastrophic AGW to be happening right now, that’s a logical impossibility.
His sophist argument that AGW (and potential human catastrophe that may follow) is similar to religious belief because it requires a divine influence to -read the signs and save us- rendering all research into the science of climate illogical and therefore false. This makes a curious counter-point to an argument of his [now deleted] but referenced here that says you can’t logically be an atheist because if you you don’t believe in god you switch that belief to the other divine power of luck.
Guest post on WUWT. appearing to defend the honour of climate sceptics.
Article from Spiked online – about the consensus on global cooling being covered up. The best check of the 70s global cooling ‘consensus’ is to research the number of science papers from the period [not newspaper articles] concerned with global cooling and compare them with the number of papers concerned with global warming of the period. The same article appeared in Spectator making Maurizo a real journalist back in 2009. UPDATE– Maurizio with relentless journalistic doggedness tracked down a killer document- the CIA wrote a report with their concern of climate change back in the 1970s that dealt with global cooling………. …… … .
UPDATE Nov. 2012 Maurizio hits the mainstream- following on from a non-news conspiracy of the BBC seminar withholding the names of the attendees Maurizio usurped the refusal of a FOI by using the WAYBACKMACHINE and coming with the 28 names [28gate (yawn)] thus guaranteeing favour with James Delingpole in the Telegraph blog and Anthony Watts at WUWT
The rather dull tale of intrigue can be found here the Harmless Skies blog the only curiosity is an interview with an attendee Richard D North, not to be confused with Richard North who hangs with Christopher Booker, Richard D is a climate change
skeptic sceptic and spoke scathingly of the BBC judgement that they shouldn’t give equal airtime to dissenting opinion, so why didn’t someone ask him who else attended? It seems the chance was missed [or ignored] read Richard D’s account of BBC dealings at….Harmless Sky.