Lies and Deciet of the Climate reform movement.

Okay, well if you really want I'll look up the getting cooler data, but I have to post it later. Sorry for my rudeness, but you always have to dispute every little thing, even when you don't understand what it is we are debating about. Again, I was merely trying to say that there are those who feel that it has been getting cooler, not trying to provide evidence to that effect.

 

No you weren't

You wrote something that was 100% wrong:

and when you were corrected - you posted a link to a media report that you obviously hadn't read. A media report that explained how certain sections of the media continue to promote the lie that the earth has "gotten cooler" in the past decade.

And your repetition of that lie illustrated the point of that media article perfectly.

 

Could you remind us again about the climate change research that Ginger Spice is involved in? Has she published any papers that outline her reasons for supporting the OISM Petition? Perhaps she wrote some in partnership with Michael J Fox?

 

Opinions mean nothing. You can sling mud all you want. but i have proven things that you cant disprove. You can ask me your guided questions. I wont answer them.

Oh BTW....

Did you know that Charles Manson believes in AGW?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/382818/april-26-2011/charles-manson-believes-in-global-warming

 

Oh and by the way guys.
The IPCC's latest report is getting no love...

Discredited UN IPCC Receives Little Attention for Latest Global Warming Report
Author
- EPW Blog Friday, November 18, 2011


Washington, D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on the release today of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers in advance of its report, Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

“The discredited United Nations IPCC is back with another global warming report, only this time it faces an increasingly skeptical public,” Senator Inhofe said. “The lack of attention on this latest report is a symptom of the crisis of confidence in the IPCC, which is ongoing.”

“For years I warned that the IPCC would lose its credibility entirely and eventually be ignored if it did not make significant reforms. In 2005, I sent a letter to IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri that contained several suggestions on how the IPCC could reform its flawed peer-review process. Yet as Reuters reported, Pachauri refused even to acknowledge my concerns: ‘In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an alarmist bias and says “I have a deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the IPCC process.” Pachauri’s main argument is that the IPCC comprises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve IPCC reports line by line. That helps ensure fairness, he says.’

“Of course, in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, when over one hundred errors in the IPCC science were revealed, I was proven right, so much so that even the mainstream media began to call for reform at the IPCC. Today, the consequences are clear: as the discredited IPCC releases its latest report, very few people have even noticed.

“Look for many in the liberal media to use the IPCC report to link weather events of today with global warming, as several have already done, but a closer look reveals this is not exactly the case. As for these attempts by the left, I simply say ‘nice try.’ This effort will fail as miserably as all their previous endeavors to promote fear and scare the public into action.

“The American people may not care about today’s IPCC Summary for Policymakers, but they do care that policy decisions are based on sound science - and the IPCC has clearly shown that science is secondary, even non-essential to their primary goal of pushing a political agenda. The American people also care about the $300 to $400 billion annual pricetag of EPA’s forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations, which are based on the endangerment finding - whose foundation is the flawed IPCC science - and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost from these destructive policies.”
Crisis of Confidence in the IPCC

August 31, 2010 Financial Times Time for a change in climate research: “Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.”

January 28, 2010 ABC News Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted? Confidence Melting Away: Doubters Grow in Climate Change Debate: But other climatologists are calling for consequences. They insist that IPCC Chairman and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri is no longer acceptable as head of the panel, particularly because of his personal involvement in the affair. “Pachauri should resign, so as to avert further damage to the IPCC,” says German climatologist Hans von Storch. “He used the argument of the supposed threat to the Himalayan glacier in his personal efforts to raise funds for research.” Storch claims that the Indian-born scientist did not order the retraction of the erroneous prediction until it had generated considerable public pressure.

February 8, 2010 New York Times Article Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege:“Just over two years ago, Rajendra K. Pachauri seemed destined for a scientist’s version of sainthood: A vegetarian economist-engineer who leads the United Nations’ climate change panel, he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the panel, sharing the honor with former Vice President Al Gore. But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists.”

February 15, 2010 Washington Post Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda: “But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes—including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level—give doubters an opening.”

February 17, 2010 New York Times Editorial “With Stakes This High”: Given the stakes, the panel cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel’s chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian engineer, also is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests. Mr. Pachauri says he does not profit personally and channels the fees to a nonprofit research center he runs in New Delhi. Yet as the person most responsible for the panel’s integrity, he cannot afford even the appearance of a conflict of interest. All this follows last November’s uproar over leaked e-mail messages that, while they had nothing to do with the panel’s reports, portrayed climate scientists as thin-skinned and fully capable of stifling competing views. The controversy over the 2007 report has been stoked by charges of poor sourcing and alarmist forecasts, prominently a prediction - in a 938-page working paper - that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This was clearly an exaggeration, though it was not included in the final report. An overblown warning of crop failures in North Africa made it into the final report.

January 20, 2010 Seth Borenstein Associated Press UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers: Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

January 21, 2010 Time magazine Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong: ‘Glaciergate’ is a “black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.”

January 21, 2010 Newsweek, The Economist Off-base camp - A mistaken claim about glaciers raises questions about the UN’s climate panel: “This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication, and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.”

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42496

People are waking up...

 

You DO realise don't you that the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is actually one man on his farm??
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html
Okay - lets's test those names - choose 5 at random and google them

if you want i will start

Arthur C. Falkler - other than a citizen of the US no evidence of publication of any kind

Franklin T. Emery, PhD - this guy does have quite a lot of peer reviewed papers to his name - pity most of them are in electrical engineering

Gerald V. Babigian
http://www.manta.com/c/mmns65m/gerald-v-babigian PAINTER!!


Jesus V. Carreon department of Mathematics and Computer Sciencehttp://contacts.mesacc.edu/carreon
Not a climate scientist

Harold Anderson Denmark - seems there is a Harold A Denmark who is an Ant taxonomist
http://gap.entclub.org/taxonomists/Denmark/index.html

Carol J. Miller, PhD This one is a psychotherapist
http://www.eng.wayne.edu/page.php?id=5332

That is five at random from the list and not one with a degree that would enable them to speak on the science behind global warming - and i did cheat a bit because I did choose PHD's over another nearby name just to weight it in your favour.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

And others have done this search and found some names are of deceased people - so I have shown five random names do not have any degrees in any science that might be even allied with global warming - can you find the ones that DO have qualifications in the field?

 

evey llittle thing?

seems you not only don't refer to any science when forming an opinion on an issue like this - you don't even read the popular press!

 

I clicked your link, She has a PHD in Civil Engineering...
Tell me now before i click the other links. Are all the people in this foundation, really qualified to debunk your theory, or are you lying?

 

to what?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15745408

also - the thing is you may be able to fool PEOPLE with climate denier lies, but you can't fool plants and animals - the simple fact is that research shows that there are significant trends in animal and plant behaviours that support the FACT that the world is warming - at a much faster rate than would be expected if natural factors only were at play.

 

I was expressing my opinion; an opinion is 100% opinion.

I posted a link which proved that others are of that opinion.

If you have proof otherwise, then shouldn't you be providing it?

I repeated the link which you seem incapable of reading or understanding.

 

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Where is your proof?

 

Man are you gonna be busy because there are 31,000 people that you are gonna have to discredit all of them.

 

There is no Ginger Spice on the list. There is a Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. on the list. Not Michael J. Fox.

 

You know I was trying to be nice, but you seem to be just as rude as ever, but here is it what you asked for:

http://www.climatecooling.org/

 

PN - over the years I have sampled this petition numerous times - and always, the sampling comes up with people who are dead, whose scientific background is irrelevant, or non existent.

at times we come up with people who have since changed their minds ...

seriously - a legitimate SURVEY (not petition) is geing to be far more valid as it targets those who have some knowledge of the area.

and you know what else?

If I were wanting to know the truth - I would be looking for someone who had experience int he field.

maybe you would visit your mechanic to fit your pacemaker - but I wouldn't

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10370955

 

hey - that is bull(*)(*)(*)(*):

http://www.csiro.au/news/Ocean-warming-and-inshore-fish-species.html


you should try sites like csiro which are a lot more reliable than orgs whose funds are from the denialist lobby.

 

She was there:
To no one's surprise, within weeks of it's release the Petition had accumulated numerous bogus signatures, including "Dr. Red Wine", characters from the TV show MASH, the author John Grisham, and a "Dr." Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) whom were are told, has a PhD in microbiology. Arthur Robinson admits that the OISM has been unable to keep pranksters from signing the petition.


Even old Artie Robinson admits that he can't keep frauds off his list! That is some petition!

 

Ohhhhh...so it was just your opinion that:

That is a strange "opinion" isn't it? It sounds like you were making a statement of fact.

Whatever - it is a particularly stupid opinion because it is 100% wrong.

And when you were told that your "opinion" was complete bollocks - you then linked to a news article explaining how right-wing media outlets were promoting the same fallacy.

It is very funny that you used this article to justify your repetition of this lie, don't you think?

The past decade from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest on record and includes 9 of the 10 hottest years. A NOAA ranking of the 15 hottest years globally shows they all occurred in the last 15 years since 1995.
http://www.universetoday.com/82514/2010-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-say-noaa-and-nasa/

I understood it. It said:
Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting the planet, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the Earth is in a period of "cooling" or that the issue of global warming does not need to be addressed.

and then presented a whole lot of silly lies that have been spread about the right wing American media for the benefit of morons.

It was one of these lies that you then duly repeated as your "opinion"! Good work you!

 

BTW - could you tell us who has been "caught fudging their math and their scientific findings"?

Or is this just another of your "opinions" with no basis in fact?

 

That doesn't suprise me. There is really no limit that the left won't go beyond to discredit people that do not agree with them.

I repeated it and would again if neccessary. You see the point being made is that people don't agree with the AGW conspiracy theory.

The article you referenced is a blog by a librarian. Not peer-reviewed, and not a climatologist.

You haven't heard about the big global warming scandal?

Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Show Scientists May Have Cooked the Facts
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...dal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts

 

2009? climate gate?

FFS PN -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3812708...ategate-inquiry-vindicates-scientists-mostly/

 

So - you would repeat:

even though you now have been told several times that it is completely wrong?

You are happy to tell outright lies simply because you like to believe in conspiracy theories? That is quite sad really.

2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html

Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last thirteen years. The warmest year-to-date on record, through August, was 1998 (note: although 1998 was the warmest year through August, a late-year surge in 2005 made that year the warmest total year). Analysis by the National Climatic Data Center reveals that, averaged globally, 2010 had the third-warmest August on record, and is virtually tied with 1998 for the warmest from January through August.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats_sup.html

 

Yes, temps have been lower than predicted by the IPCC.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Looming_Threat_of_Global_Cooling.htm

 

That wasn't what you said.

You wrote:

Which is completely wrong.

It is a fallacy that has been spread by right-wing media in the US - as the link you provided illustrated

And since being advised it is wrong, you have indicated you will still continue to repeat it.

That is very dishonest of you.

 

No, I have already proven that many of the names on that list (and I did it in only 5 random picks) are not scientists

Now it is up to you to prove that list IS valid - and I warn you there is plenty of evidence out there that says it is not. I am not the only one who has checked those names and found discrepancies

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html

Now Skeptical Science used OISM's own definition of a scientist and compared it to the digest of educational statistics

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html

I won't embarrass you further by posting the rest of that analysis but suffice it to say that if we compare the OISM to the "climategate" emails then you are looking at a comparison of mass murderer to a little girl throwing her dolly in the rubbish bin

Greenfyre has a nice list of those who have debunked this petition

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/

Here is a debunking done by the Skeptics Society

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

Even WIKI lists it as a fraud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/

And some of the signatories are actually DEAD!!

This is not a petition it is a JOKE!

And you do realise that even the "institution" backing it is, well I would not call it a fraud but it certainly would not be able to operate with that name anywhere else in the world where there are better false advertising statutes