Hartlepool

I have suffered an infraction for the above post,claiming I insulted a member.

It beats me.

I can pull up at least five worse cases if needed but nothing done about them at all.

Signed,HP,a disgruntled member.

Yeh,I know,if I don't like it here I can go elsewhere.

C_steam

You think? have you no clue as to how the wiki is organised or managed? It has very little academic support, consisting as it does of articles written or edited by individuals - in many cases unknown.

Fact is that V large companies and governments employ staff to 'update' the wiki in their favour so that it acts in their best interests.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

Hartlepool

Yes,its very Wiki Washi,and some of it is absolutely diabolical stuff.

Clippo

BonnieDundee,

Long & bitter experience on this forum has taught me, (and a quite a few others I believe,) that AGW sceptics CANNOT accept that the overwhelming independent peer-reviewed science has comprehensively debunked all their Exxon stimulated doubts.
No matter how many times you refer to independent science, data measured, collected & analysed by reputable scientists and scientific bodies around the world, they will not accept it’s truth because this truth threatens their Libertarian economic god of the US conservative right. At least, it did about 20 years ago and that’s why many/most? major US corporations set up bodies like Global Climate Coalition and spawned all these phoney US ‘Institutes’ or ‘Centers’ & ‘think Tanks’ Their publicly avowed purpose was to disseminate doubt about the increasing evidence in favour of the man made CO2 evolution link to Global warming, using the media techniques of the tobacco industry in the USA a generation before to deny the smoking – lung Cancer link.
Look back at the so-called ‘evidence’ links that mpkdavies and Poptech, (if they are different posters), have provided in recent posts. See if you can recognise any of these Institutes or Centers and see if you can recognise repeating names of scientists.

Type them into Wikipedia if you wish or go to the link I gave somewhere recently :-
Logical Science Incidentally, you may want to go to the page there which discusses ‘AGW consensus’ for ammo – but the sceptics conveniently try to deny that.

(BTW, I was berated very recently for using Wiki – well let me defend myself. I am fully aware of potential errors and political interference in Wiki but I have said several times previously that I only refer to it as a first source. Isn’t that what exactly what mpkdavies & Poptech said above ?

It seems to me Climate change sceptics particularly, love wiki when it says things they may want to read but it is totally ‘rubbish’ when there are ‘Inconvenient Truths’ to them in it.

Continuing the AGW ‘consensus’ theme, besides the humungous volume of support for AGW from around the world, I see that there is, in the last few days a published survey in the USA which says (I think I published this as a thread recently):-
STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
An extract :-
(BTW, this poll was carried out for STATS by Robert Lichter who has links, I believe to Fox news – another notorious anti AGW media organisation. So it must be good.
To cover myself I will only say that this information is second hand & I haven’t had chance to verify it in my usual way).

Re:- Mpkdavies statement over ‘models' - ( garbage in, garbage out ) - he frankly is in the climate-modelling dark-ages. He wouldn’t recognise a computer climate model if it hit him on the head.

Much of the ground breaking mathematics which underpins most Climate models, both Atmospheric and Oceanic, was developed by Ed Lorenz who died very recently. He was also responsible for the bulk of the mathematics of Chaos theory – held in the highest regard around the world. A summary of his life & work appears both in Wiki and recently in www.realclimate.com
Furthermore, this site is pure ‘gold’ for scientific FACTS about all disciplines related to global warming. They have a post filter mechanism which stops the ‘mindless’ sceptics diarrhoea -ing the phoney papers and links that you have seen so much of here recently.

Take heart, the dubious efforts of the denial industry have been exposed and are patently not working any more. Even George Bush, as I posted recently, now ‘believes’ in AGW. Furthermore, BP and Shell left the Climate change coalition long before it collapsed and both the chief executives are reputed to have agreed that GW is largely man made. Furthermore, it was reported in Wiki last year that Exxon higher management made speeches which implied they also believed in AGW. I haven’t looked recently to see if they have retracted this but they hadn’t several months after – which was telling !

I promised myself I would limit my contribution here following my very enjoyable forced absence. So, I may not post for several days.

mkpdavies

If anyone needed evidence that this is more like a fanatical religious cult, with no real basis in reality or science, then this statement should finally close the deal for you.

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

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Poptech

More hot air. You do not provide evidence you just pretend it exists, is comprehensive or debunks anything. And repeat over and over then you throw in the tiring oil conspiracy for good measure.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Nice conspiracy theory but these organizations are not phoney and they are skeptical of AGW. There are actually many organizations skeptical of AGW:

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

Poptech

Please look at the actual evidence I provide. Yes repeated names of real scientists. I realize that is hard for you to comprehend but they are real scientists with degrees. Oh yes we are different posters please stop with the conspiracies.

I already explained wikipedia is worthless. Your AGW alarmist site logical science is out of ammo.

Really? First I have heard of this. My position has never changed.

Your poll is of 489 professional scientists from organizations that have 12,000 members (AMS) and 45000 (AGU). How do you determine consensus by polling only 0.8% of it's members?

I would since I am a computer scientist and have experience with computer modeling and what Mpkdavies states is corect:

This is nice rhetoric but does not change how computers work or the problems with the models:

"The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases."

Realclimate is home to alarmist scientists and the unofficial AGW headquarters.

Clippo

Poptech wrote:-

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...............................

Barking!!!

Besoeker

If the said scientist campaigns against (alleged) global warming is he really likely to endorse any statement that supports it?

Besoeker

Hi Popeye
Have you read any of the WG4 report?
I mean actually read any section of the report, not what people say about it.
Make your own mind up about the data presented.