Waiting for Global Cooling still

Clippo · 28-04-2008, 01:07 PM

Hartlepool wrote:-

Quote:

Poptech,you're killing them with proven facts,and they can't handle it,all 4 of them are at a complete loss on what to do or post next.

Best laugh I've had for ages. Please Please explain to us '4' (and perhaps the ALL the governments of the World, and ALL the national scientific institutions in the world and the majority of world citizens where representative polling has taken place ), exactly what Poptech's, 'proven' facts are.

(If you can find them, just a couple will do for a start.)

Hartlepool · 28-04-2008, 01:10 PM

Don't know about anyone else on here but I do know for certain whose information I believe,and it isn't cli po either.

Poptech · 28-04-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

If you could be bothered, you could google and search hundreds if not thousands of criticisms of this project. However, for simplicity, and as a jumping off point for further research I refer you to wiki (don’t you just love it

) :-

"Thousands of criticisms" yet you choose the irrelevant Wikipedia? Please. I realise alarmists take the existence of a criticism as evidence of something being factually incorrect (which is one of the reasons RealClimate is so popular) but that is not how science works nor does it disprove something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

I particularly this extract from the Scientific American

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.["16]

You will see from the bottom of the wiki link, late last year, OISM tried the petition again. However, with the evidence of fraud and ambiguity in the earlier one, scientists are now wary. Despite repeated calls, I don’t think the results have been published yet –

Wow Scientific American checked out 30 out of the 19,000 Scientists! Amazing they absolutely debunked that, maybe you missed the obvious link I provided:

Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)

Quote:

Only one false name has ever appeared on the petition. It was put there by Ozone Action (now Greenpeace USA) and removed immediately thereafter.

Every listed signer has a university degree in science. The posted listing gives their highest degrees. Thousands of physicists and chemists signed - including about 100 members of the National Academy, about 500 meteorologists and climate scientists, and numerous very eminent people in American science.

...while about 25 have asked to have their signatures removed.

For every signer we have a physical signature mailed to us by first class mail from the signer's address. No one has been listed who did not actually sign - except the Ozone Action signature, which they sent with false credentials, a false address, and a false signature.

The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy.

Wrong AGAIN! Clippo you need to stop referencing the worthless Wikipedia.

Hartlepool · 28-04-2008, 05:06 PM

Constantly quoting WAKI could damage a persons image in my eyes.

BonnieDundee · 01-05-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poptech

What like the BCC?

BBC report finds bias within corporation (The Daily Telegraph, UK)

BBC viewers angered by its 'innate liberal bias' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Confessions of a BBC liberal (The Times, UK)
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (Daily Mail, UK)

You have no idea even what my sources are as you ridiculous generalization means you have not even looked at them. Do you even know what Science Daily is?

All those sources were newspapers and ones with a particular ideological angle. I don't think a Murdoch newspaper should be accusing anyone of bias. You'll be quoting the Sun or New's of the World next.

I notice Poptech that aside from making silly claims about the president of the Royal society not representing most members and of course posting alot of dubious links you yourself have not put forward any arguments.

BonnieDundee · 01-05-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

Constantly quoting WAKI could damage a persons image in my eyes.

It is not that bad. As me and Alex noted it has quite strict rules for editing that are easily available to all except seemingly Poptech who has his apparently much betters sources like the Telegraph and Daily Mail.

Poptech · 01-05-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

All those sources were newspapers and ones with a particular ideological angle. I don't think a Murdoch newspaper should be accusing anyone of bias.

I am sorry for using "newspapers" to report the news of the blatant liberal Bias at the BBC but the evidence is overwhelming:

BBC report finds bias within corporation (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Bias and the Beeb (Financial Times, UK)
Bias at the Beeb - official (The Times, UK)
BBC confesses bias on religion, politics (WorldNetDaily)
BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left (WorldNetDaily)
BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ (The Times, UK)
BBC viewers angered by its 'innate liberal bias' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Confessions of a BBC liberal (The Times, UK)
Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed (The Daily Mail, UK)
The BBC's commitment to bias is no laughing matter (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Beeb's Bias (The Wall Street Journal)
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (Daily Mail, UK)
Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job (Daily Mail, UK)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

I notice Poptech that aside from making silly claims about the president of the Royal society not representing most members and of course posting alot of dubious links you yourself have not put forward any arguments.

Then surely you can prove me wrong and provide me with the scientific survey of all the members that show a clear "consensus".

I have destroyed all your attempts at argument with plenty of SOURCES. I realize this is shocking to those who want to promote the alarmist hysteria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

It is not that bad. As me and Alex noted it has quite strict rules for editing that are easily available to all except seemingly Poptech

As have both of you have noted you are unable to answer my questions and by default are proven wrong.

C_steam · 01-05-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

This is why all the world’s governments are committed to keeping CO2 levels below 450ppm.

All? what does this mean, in practice? i.e China has committed but still builds old-tech coal fired powers stations on an almost daily basis.

So does 'committed' just mean, in many cases, only lip service?

mkpdavies · 01-05-2008, 03:01 PM

I have heard all countries have commited to having a giant knob installed, that can control the planets co2 levels.

His name is Al Gore (peace be upon him).

Besoeker · 01-05-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poptech

Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)

Quote:

Every listed signer has a university degree in science. The posted listing gives their highest degrees. Thousands of physicists and chemists signed

I wonder if you have actually looked at the list of signatories?
If you do, a couple of things might strike you as a bit odd.
Firstly, why are the only qualifications given either PhD or MD? No batchelor's, no master's. Why? Is an MD the best authority on climate science? And a doctorate could be on almost anything - from stem-cell research to sub-synchronous converter cascade systems.
Next, in many cases no qualification at all is stated.
For example, picked at random:

Quote:

Richard Gaggioli, PhD, Joe Gagliardi, Thomas R Gagnier, A Gahr, PhD, Wayne Gahwiller, Tinsley P Gaines, Will Gaines, MD, Bruce Gaither, John Gaither, Douglas Gaither.....

If, as Art Robinson claims, every signer has a university degree in Science and, if he is certain of that, then why is it omitted in so many cases? Surely its inclusion would have added a degree of credibility (no pun intended

) to the petition?

01-05-2008, 03:01 PM	#89 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	I have heard all countries have commited to having a giant knob installed, that can control the planets co2 levels. His name is Al Gore (peace be upon him). __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28-04-2008, 01:10 PM	#82 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,409	Don't know about anyone else on here but I do know for certain whose information I believe,and it isn't cli po either.

28-04-2008, 05:06 PM	#84 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,409	Constantly quoting WAKI could damage a persons image in my eyes.