Poptech

This isn't about left or right yet you feel the need to bring up the political leanings of a newspaper?

It makes perfect sense. You cannot back up your "scientific" position with evidence.

You have the political heads of 13 scientific societies signing a piece of paper. You do not have ANY evidence of the position held by it's members. You have 13 - nothing more.

So surely you can provide evidence of the scientific poll or survey done of the Canadian Royal Societies members to support her position.

Obviously I included economists since they are the experts on the economy and their opinion on what we do to the economy in relation to AGW is more important then ANY natural scientist. Ms. Demer's background is useless in the debate.

I am lacking what? You keep stating that my questions are answered in the Wiki page yet you cannot prove me wrong and prove that even one of my questions are answered on it. You keep lying and stating that they are because you just keep getting you ass handed to you on your lack of knowledge on how Wikipedia works.

Prove me wrong! Come on you can do it, you sure talk a lot but no action.

Poptech

NO I am never going away. How about These facts:

"More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming" - 2008 Texas A&M University Study

Climate of Fear (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, The Daily Telegraph, UK)



Guides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
Global Warming FAQ (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global Warming: Science vs. Nonsense (PDF) (EIR Economics)

Myths:
Fallacies about Global Warming (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
Green Myths On Global Warming - Debunked (The Association of British Drivers, UK)
Heartland President Debunks Global Warming Myths (The Heartland Institute)
Myths and Facts About the Environment (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Myths of Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, ABC News)
Top 10 Environmental Myths (PDF) (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)

Papers:
Apocalypse cancelled (PDF) (Christopher Monckton, Former Policy Advisor for British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
The Global Warming Folly (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology)
The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatologist)

Reports:
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Civil Society Report on Climate Change (PDF) (Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change)

or these....

Temperatures:
- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)
- Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA)
- The warmest year in the United States was 1934. (NASA)

Sea Level Rise:
- Global mean sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
- 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- Sea level has only been monitored by satellite altimetry since 1992 with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. (University of Colorado)

Carbon Dioxide:
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas.
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC)
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by 600-1000 years. (Source) (Source)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) did not end the last Ice Age. (Source)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (Source)
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)
- Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA)
- U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006 (Source)

"Consensus":
- Anthropogenic ("Man-Made") Global Warming is an unproven Theory (hypothesis).
- There is no 'Consensus' that Global Warming is"Man-Made". (Source)
- There is no 'Consensus' that Global Warming will cause Catastrophic Climate Change. (Source)
- Science is not determined by 'Consensus' but by the Scientific Method.

Want more? I have plenty.

Poptech

Those 13 people represent 13 people. That is all that signed. I do not see the signatures of the members, I do not see ANY evidence that the members support that position. Are you saying that everytime the President of the United States or the British Prime Minister signs something it is supported by a consensus of their electorate?

The head of scientific societies are political positions for the society.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide [...] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause [...] disruption of the Earth's climate."

I am not talking about whether the signers actually signed the paper, I am asking for evidence that this position is held by it's members. I have seen no such scientific poll or survey done of these societies members. Nothing. Therefore you paper is meaningless and designed to fool the uneducated to the imagined consensus.

OISM provides all the names, it should be quite easy to verify many of them. Surely you can prove them wrong and find made up names. I am sure no one has attempted to do this before except for Scientific American who only looked at 30 names when they could have easily looked at a couple hundred and made a stronger case. Someone could have actually by now looked at all the names. The problem is once you start to do so you consistently find real scientists. As I demonstrated. It is quite easy to cherry pick more common names that are harder to search for but that does not disprove a real scientist has that name. What you are attempting to do has been tried and failed just as you continue to.

Besoeker

Had any luck with the Ackermans yet?

BonnieDundee

Okay your silly antics are getting silly now. I must conlude Poptech due to your single issue posting, your reliance on dubious sources and absurd arguments and your lack of any knowledge on the subject and seeming inability to read basic English that you are a .

And if you could not even read the wiki rules I sure as hell am not going to trawl through your dubious sites to find the ID. You must provide it otherwise you have not even that dubious piece of **** to back you up.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

mkpdavies

Poptech, when you back all your arguments up with solid source and they call you a troll, you know you have a few more bullet ridden dead fish in your barrel.

Well done. I yield to your skills at owning envirofascists.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

BonnieDundee

When did he do any of that? He has a few dubious sources. he seems to rely on Murdoch newspapers and similar. He, like you and many others seem to be entirely ideologically motivated on this issue.

I have no agenda for supporting or not supporting MMGW, the anti-arguments are just not convincing and Poptech's arguments have been pathetic. He has turned to crude word games, so I have little sympathy for him and it seems clear he is a .

And I know I'm more anti-authoritarian than you, once upon a time I was an anarchist so I don't know where the fascist comments come from.

Your post itself is pretty close.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

Repeat:
It is quite easy to cherry pick more common names that are harder to search for but that does not disprove a real scientist has that name.

Poptech

So proving you wrong is silly? I see how you can just declare a source "dubious" that must make it easy to win arguments with idiots. My knowledge on the subject is EXTENSIVE.

I have told you MULTIPLE time that:

I HAVE READ THE WIKI RULES

and you are lying because no where does it answer my questions! You sir continue to lie and cannot prove me wrong. Your continued inability to do such a simple task only demonstrates how you have lost the argument.

1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.

2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)

3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?

4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?

5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?

8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?

9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?

10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?

This is getting embarrassing for you because you cannot prove me wrong. You should be able to destroy and humilliate me if what you state is true but you are either really delusional about Wikipedia or thought you could get away with a lie. Your sir were wrong.

Hartlepool

Looking like a ten zip score for Poptech on this one again,go Poptech,eater of envirolunatics.