Reply With QuoteAnother excellent post by Poptech,it gets better and better.
Well done.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
It is bad practice to call someone who lies a liar? If you read what you wrote you made slanderous accusations that are outright lies sorry if the truth hurts maybe you will learn to stop lying.Originally Posted by Clippo
Was it peer-reviewed? No.
I would try linking to my sources without linking to them but then I would be posting unsubstantiated BS like you. Maybe the version in Nature Magazine would help:
Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (Nature Magazine: "Peer to Peer")
Sure all your mistakes are honest until you are held accountable. It is much easier for you to lie and smear and then claim it an accident, sorry if I don't buy it.
NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming (NPR)
Another excellent post by Poptech,it gets better and better.
Well done.
From your very last link:-
Space
NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming
Morning Edition, May 31, 2007 · NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."
The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:
It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.
Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists .......
& from a link within that link :-
I seem to remember he was forced to apologise to the bulk of his senior emplyees. Oh yes, lovely wiki has it:-Hansen also takes issue with NASA administrator Michael Griffin's views on global warming during an interview with Madeleine Brand. Griffin told NPR's Morning Edition that he isn't sure global warming is a problem we must tackle, a view Hansen says is "remarkably uninformed."
You've obviously prepared for quite a long time for this spamming episode and at the moment I don't have the time to expose the bogus intentions of most of your links. I don't even have the time to trawl through all the reliable science blogs to find refutation of your links.Prominent climate scientists have referred to his remarks as ignorant.[10] In particular, James Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.[11]Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”[12]
[edit] Follow up
In a closed-door meeting on June 4, 2007 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Griffin said:
“Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.” “All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this.”[13]
I can see through the tactics of the denial industry (& I know others here can). Fortunately for us the propaganda spewed out by 'Exxon' puppets has been blown apart by reasoned science - so much so that, as I posted elsewhere, only a few crackpots in the US political system cling on to false doubts.
Returning to the central issue of the thread, a claim that global cooling has occured recently, you have chosen to ignore the worldwide data collected by a US scientific body that is politically independent e.g world renowned, and which shows conclusively that there is still a warming trend.
You've lost the debate. full stop.
Whose denying the truth and trying to impose lies upon us now?
Last edited by Clippo; 29-04-2008 at 07:53 PM. Reason: slight changes
Yes of course Hansen was outraged, one of the alarmist creators of the current hysteria. Griffin was 100% correct as scientific organizations should stay out of politics.
He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."
His whole statement...
and he continued, putting the hysterical Hansen in his place (oh that must of made Hansen crazy) but he was right..."I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.Denial? I would hate to keep being so prepared...
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global Warming Smear Targets (David R. Legates, The Marshall Institute)
Hooey Denier Deniers (RealClearPolitics)
Ignorance Is Strength, Dissent Is Treason (The National Review)
Newsweek: Global-Warming Skeptics Are Like Moon-Landing Deniers (Business and Media Institute)
Nuremberg-Style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Public 'in denial' about climate change (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Really? News to me...- so much so that, as I posted elsewhere, only a few crackpots in the US political system cling on to false doubts.
84% of Congressional Republicans do not believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming (National Journal)
I have provided substantial evidence of a Global Cooling trend and have lost nothing.
Interesting that he ignored post #76.
Poptech wrote:-
No you haven’t ! see belowI have provided substantial evidence of a Global Cooling trend …………..
&
You have – you have lost your scientific credibility by continually spamming links to websites of dubious provenance and articles within them written in the most part by anyone except Climate Change scientists.and have lost nothing.
You have repeated ad nausem the corrupted journalistic statement originated by.Roger Harrabin of the BBC. Read the story here:-
Deltoid: Denialists Against Corrections
You have completely ignored the categorical statement by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) that I posted somewhere earlier.
info_44_en.html
You have completely ignored the factual data expressed by the NOAA
NCDC: Climate of 2007 - Annual Review
a more readable summary is here:-
2007 A Top Ten Warm Year For U.S. And Globe
The scientific independence and respect for the integrity of the work of these organisations is not questioned by any other than a tiny number of contrarian people.
So it’s you against the rest of the scientific world and it looks to me you've lost this debate conclusively.
So you consider these sources of "dubious provenance"?
ABC News
American Geophysical Union
Australian Institute of Marine Science
BBC
Berkley National Laboratory
Bloomberg
BusinessWeek
Consumer Reports
Danish National Space Center
Detroit Free Press
Edmonton Journal
European Space Agency
Financial Post, Canada
Financial Times, UK
Forbes
Geological Society of America
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Herald Sun, Australia
IPCC
MIT
MSN Money
MSNBC
NASA
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories
National Geographic
National Post, Canada
New Scientist
Newsweek
NPR
NOAA
Ohio State University
Popular Mechanics
Rasmussen Reports
Reuters
Slate Magazine
Science
Science Daily
Science Express
Scientific America
Snopes
The Age, Australia
The Daily Telegraph, UK
The Guardian, UK
The New York Times
The Pew Research Center
The San Francisco Chronicle
The Times, UK
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Times
United Press International
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Congressional Budget Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Newswire
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
USGS
USA Today
World Wildlife Fund
Oh did I expose liberal bias at the BBC? I am so sorry...
BBC heats up the climate news (Financial Post, Canada)
- The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist (The Politics and Environment Blog)
- BBC Article: Global temperatures 'to decrease' (Before and After) (Google Cache)
- Origin - BBC : Balance Restored (Campaign against Climate Change, UK Activist Portal)
BBC report finds bias within corporation (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
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)
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (Daily Mail, UK)
Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job (Daily Mail, UK)
There statement makes perfect sense, when it cools it is natural when it warms it is caused by man-made CO2. I am happy the WMO cleared that one up for me.
I hate it when only this many scientists are on my side...
19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
But hey you do have your 13!
You've repeated again most of the links to discredited information sources about global cooling/warming. Enough of the flim-flam & spin,
Answer this:-
Which do you believe the WMO and NOAA statements in the earlier links indicate - GW or GC ??
Poptech 9 points ahead so far,and he looks like increasing his lead,oops,just noticed that the clippo has brought on his sub,Besoeker,as he often does when running out of ideas and responses to Poptechs superior technique in debating and researching.
Yes of course my "discredited" sources such as these...
Financial Post, Canada
National Post, Canada
The Daily Telegraph, UK
The Times, UK
US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
I already stated it is clear from the WMO that Cooling is caused by Nature but Warming is caused by Man-Made CO2 and Man-Made CO2 is driving climate change to Doomsday except when Nature cools it down but ignore that because the WMO says so. Yes of course the WMO could never be corrupted...
Theft and Mismanagement Charged at U.N. Weather Agency (The New York Times, 2005)
Leaked report details corruption allegations at U.N. weather agency (International Herald Tribune, 2007)
Swiss launch corruption probe at U.N. weather body (Reuters, 2007)
Bookmarks