Oregon petition warmed over

Last year RealClimate reported that there had been another mass mailing to get more signatures on the notorious Oregon Petition. They are now announcing that they've increased the number of signatures from 19,000 to 31,000. The original objections to the Oregon Petition still apply -- most of the signers do not have PhDs and are not practising scientists. Just 40 of the signers claim to be climatologists, and since they don't tell you their names, it's impossible to check whether they are, in fact, climatologists.

Bigcitylib decided to test their quality control by signing using a fake name and fake qualifications.
He's on the list.

More like this

Lambert, it's the Oregan [sic] petition.

Should I join the list? I'm still deciding what to call myself. Perhaps "Dr. Fred Mbogo"?

I say we count MDs as climate scientists - Meteorological Doctors. Doctors of Variable Meteorology. Doctor of Dendrochronological Scieincy stuff.

And I like it that they still can't list the "signers" by affiliation. Beautiful - they are still hiding stuff.

Best,

D

Hey, cool, I wanna be on the list with teh other scientist dudes !

w00t !

Who comes up with teh best Doctor's name ?

Doktor Michael von der Ãnterhosen

And where's Willie Soon? Ohhhhh - he's already on the paper for summary of "peer-reviewed research". And what a list of peer-reviewed research it is: hunnnndreds of papers by signatories refuting the warmer alarmist Goreacles.

Verrrry impressive work.

Best,

D

Just curious....

Could someone please provide a list of IPCC authors that includes each of their scientific backgrounds.

I would also like to see a list of the names of the 2500 scientists that reviewed the reports, along with their backgrounds.

While were at it.....what percentage of the 2500 scientists (if they are all scientists) makes up the consensus.

Respectfully,

The denialist twit.

Did Bigcitylib actually make the list? He stated in the above referenced blog post that, "unless my copy went astray in the mail, I expect to have joined 31,000 other scientists." He never confimed that he made it. Still waiting to hear that he succeeded.
RP

I'll still thinking of starting a "1,000,000 scientists think the greatest threat to world peace today is chocolate rain" petition, if and when I get access to a CGI-able web server.

It appears that I made the list. There is a Michael F. Murphy (I changed my middle initial, as I blog as "MJ" and I didn't want to make it TOO easy to connect my posts on the topic to the copy I mailed to them), but I don't recall adding the "MD" they have at the end, so its possible there is another person by that name that sent a copy in.

The other objection to it is that it is based upon lies and distortions.

"You do know that the IPCC has a website, Betula?"

Tim.... that was my point in asking for each of their "scientific backgrounds"....to me,the IPCC reports seem vague on this, often listing the affiliations they represent, and leaving it at that.

Tim.... that was my point in asking for each of their "scientific backgrounds"....to me,the IPCC reports seem vague on this, often listing the affiliations they represent, and leaving it at that.

you must be joking!

what more than a name and an institution do you need? (and indeed, the oregon list does NOT include an institution, makes fakes even eassier.)
even now the list of names fills several pages of the report.

hint: you are supposed to do further ersearch on the people if you wnat to know more. google scholar search jumps to (my?) mind!

when offered the choice between a complete fake list (oregon institute) and an obviously real one, Betula chooses to critisize the IPCC...

Are there any working climate scientists on Oregon petition?

If there were, you know they'd be trumpeted from here to Pluto.

Seeing as there are exactly zeeee-ro published papers from signatories on that website, you be the judge.

Best,

D

"Betula chooses to critisize the IPCC..."

So asking questions is criticizing? In fact I signed my comment "denialist twit" to save you the time, knowing that asking such a question could only lead to such a reaction.

"you are supposed to do further ersearch on the people if you wnat to know more. google scholar search jumps to (my?) mind!"

Googling 2500 names could take some time......I thought perhaps there was a list somewhere to save time. How stupid of me.

Draggnabbit, nuked AGAIN by the underscores.
Sorry, Tim. And Markdown's page isn't opening to remind me.

Just replace every x with an underscore to make the link work:

[link](http://www.desmogblog.com/IPCC_2007_Info_Centre/Contact_info_for_Canadi…)

*I fixed it. If you don't remember markdown syntax [text] (url) -- except no space between the square and round brackets you can always use html. Tim*

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 20 May 2008 #permalink

Betula, let me introduce you to the Monte Carlo method: pick a random subset of the names (a number you ARE willing to Google) and see how their credentials check out.

saurabh.

Here's something interesting I found.

This guy...

http://www.iied.org/aboutiied/HR/staff/bios/huq.html

Who wrote these words......

"In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible."

In this article....

http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/bangladesh-floods-rich-nations-must…

Now there's a straight forward, unbiased, non-political thinker for you.

Betula : "Now there's a straight forward, unbiased, non-political thinker for you."

OMG, you told the truth!!
And here I had you classified as
Betula: couldn't tell the truth if it were tattooed on the backs of her eyelids.

It now must be changed to
Betula: wouldn't recognize the truth if it reared up and bit her on the ass.

So asking questions is criticizing?

your questions STINK!

you can ask questions about the splinter in your brother's eye, when the discussion is on the beam which is in your own eye.

but don t expect applause when doing it.

Within a week we will find quite a few signatories are deceased, and I'm not just talking about natural attrition! Most that survive will be petroleum consultants, doctors and god-botherers,and they will all love freedom.

So asking questions is criticizing?

Is there a way to read that question that makes it no longer a criticism? On the off-chance that your question wasn't merely a rhetorical device sharpened to a point in order to criticize (or deeper yet, an ironic reversal of the point), the answer is: sometimes, yes.

elspi...

And here I had you figured for someone who could tell the gender of a person who goes by the name Betula.....

And it's strange how you say I told the truth, yet you picture the truth as having teeth.....it must hurt.

"you can ask questions about the splinter in your brother's eye, when the discussion is on the beam which is in your own eye."

As an Arborist, I am required to wear safety glasses by OSHA. My eyes are usually wide open.

puogh

I don't mean to be critical, but are you refering to the original questions or the question regarding if asking questions is criticizing?

I'd like to point out that 357 architects signed a petition saying that the 9/11 attacks were staged. Which is rather more than 40 climatologists.
Obviously, the IPCC blew up the twin towers to create an excuse to destroy the world economy by grounding planes and driving up the price of oil to stop global warming.

sorry, that should have been 357 architects and engineers.

Dr. Hugh Manatee!

"Googling 2500 names could take some time......I thought perhaps there was a list somewhere to save time. How stupid of me."

I know. and there's not even a site where the entire suite of IPCC reports is boiled down into one paragraph powerful enough to convince even someone like me, who is much too busy to clutter my head with a lot of evidence.

"I have here in my hand a list of 205, a list of names made known to the secretary of state as being members of the scientific establishment and who nevertheless don't believe in global warming."

And as of 2001, the Flat Earth Society had 3,000 members...

"And here I had you figured for someone who could tell the gender of a person who goes by the name Betula....."

You are just Ann Coulter with a twist. He has a female name and you have a male name.
(Nobody is as kinky as a conservative.)

Picking on the Halliwell petition is a bit low-brow; Melanie Phillips has a better list at her web-site, and here's a another list;

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

This really is a vexed question; ie, my list is bigger than your list; perhaps a showdown could put it to rest once and for all; we all know about the debate;

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/21/a-winning-tactic/

But Ray Pierrehumbert cried foul; so how about some AGW related activities; AGW supporters could stand at the sea-shore for a specified time to see if they go under; AGW deniers could set up camp on the edge of the Arctic to see if they go in; Flannery could visit some towns to see how his predictions are going and Prince charlie could be placed in a forest somewhere to see if deforestation rates overtake him; Spencer could go up in a hot-air balloon to measure some clouds, and Anthony Watts could walk around the world with a few thermometers attached to him.

Anything to resolve this lists at twenty paces stuff.

Maybe those on the denialist list could do some real climate cience? Don't you wonder why they don't? How about relevant citations at 20 paces, alex?

Betula #20,

the para you quoted from Saleem Huq is a straightforward description of the situation that describes the approach being taken by developing countries in negotiations. It is a direct assessment of a specific position being taken towards the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

All IPCC authors are represented in the refereed scholarly literature and are chosen for their knowledge, skill and integrity.

Declaration of interest - I know Saleem well and am an IPCC Co-ordinating Lead Author (Somehow I slipped through the knowledge, skill and integrity bit, but I can vouch for the others).

By Roger Jones (not verified) on 20 May 2008 #permalink

Very good dhogaza; I'll lead with Koutsoyiannis and Miskolczi, and follow up with Sage and Milankovitch, noting we are currently at a maximum perihelion/aphelion compaction.

Thats been 3 days now our local denialist hasn't written to the newspaper. I wonder if he's ok. He's been banging on about the ORegon petition for at least 3 years now, and continues to misunderstand the science.

I think I've found a dead 'un...Harner Selvidge, can you please advise us of your whereabouts?

Since the chair of the IPCC is an engineer (shudder) rather than a climate scientist I am pleased to see how all the eco-fascists, being impartial people, have all denounced it as a fake.

Or not as the case may be.

On the other hand I regret, but am hardly surprised, that the main reaction here is to devise ways of faking. Typical.

Ahhh, Neil, good of you to drop by. Are you going to write a letter full of innacuracies and conspiracy claims to the SCotsman about their lack of coverage of the Oregon petition?

And that wasn't me as the anonymous who posted on your blog post. I always use my name.

I got as far as "eco-fascists"... then yawned, scratched my butt, rolled over and went back to sleep.

"You are just Ann Coulter with a twist. He has a female name and you have a male name. (Nobody is as kinky as a conservative.)"

Butula is a male name?
It is true that the leaves of Betula are alternate, doubly serrate, feather-veined, petiolate, and stipulate......and that is kinda kinky, however, I always thought of Liberals as more kinky.......I've seen those parades in San Francisco.

elspi.

However, "Butula" sounds very kinky......probably extreme far left, yet still doesn't help us with gender identification.

Given the number of right wingers caught doing strange and kinky things, I hardly think sexual behaviour is related to politics except in a general cultural way.

Considering the high prevalence of homosexuality amongst the SA perhaps Betula's charming "You pinkos is all a bunch of faggots" is intended as proof for the Brownshirt charge.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 21 May 2008 #permalink

Roger...

"the para you quoted from Saleem Huq is a straightforward description of the situation that describes the approach being taken by developing countries in negotiations"

So developing countries are taking the negotiating approach of "demanding" money from rich nations in the future because it's their "legal liability", based on events that can't be proven by AGW, but will certainly be caused by AGW in the future.

And you don't see an Agenda there?

With all due respect Roger, open your eyes to where this is going.

In Saleem's own words, this flood "may be impossible to attribute" to climate change and the 6 years that passed since the last flood "does not prove conclusively that this flood is due to global warming".

Yet he goes on to say with "certainty" that future floods will be due to AGW.

I have a few silly questions:

1.All future floods or just some of them?

2.Which ones will the "rich" nations be responsible for.

3.Since storms and floods are not created by AGW (only predicted to exacerbate them) at what percent did AGW increase the flood and what percentage of that percent was caused by "rich" nations.

4.Among rich nations, what percent did each one cause?

5.What futuristic computer model will do these calculations.

Of course, the answer to all these questions is that in the long run, it doesn't matter. It's a settlement negotiation and the developing nations will try to get as much as they can, in the end being satisfied if they get anything.

All this under the "demands" that the "rich" nations are "morally" and "legally" responsible to distribute their ill-gotten gains, accrued by selflishly creating possible events that haven't yet been caused by AGW but will "certainly" result in these events happening in the future........so give us money.

Roger, do you seriously not see a bias here?

PS....on another note, M.J. Murphy say's his name wasn't on the list. Perhaps "He's on the list" at the top of this post should be updated.

Ian......

Elspi brought up "kinky conservative", in my response I mistyped "Butula" and made a joke.......get a life.

I'll lead with Koutsoyiannis and Miskolczi

The science equivalent of punch and judy.

Glad you brought up Milankovich, as I'm sure climate scientists have never heard of him and therefore haven't considered whether or not orbital precession etc might be affecting things in the decadal and century time scales.

Since it wasn't you I'm glad to have so many Scots readers closely following both my blog & the local papers Guthrie.

I have had a letter published in the Scotsman saying that the failure of the media to mention the Oregon Petition is, at least, inconsistent with the amount of coverage so many eco-fascist scare stories from slighter sources get.

It is, of course, a complete & deliberate lie to say that it was "full of inacuracies" (otherwise you would be able to name them) but I accept that in saying this you are merely representing the standard of honesty to which the child murdering eco-fascist movement generally aspires.

Or perhaps you, or somebody anonymous, will list half a dozen of these "inaccuracies"?

Why should we believe anything Neil Craig says about the "child murdering eoc-fascist movement" until he stops beating his wife?

I second Dano's motion!

ALL M.D.s need to sign!

-- M.D.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 21 May 2008 #permalink

butula... a vampire who specializes in attacking from the low and behind?

child murdering eco-fascist movement

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Somebody wake me when something interesting happens.

Professor Choi, PhD,Ye C. Choi, PhD,D. S. Choi, PhD,

Apparently, according to the petition, someone's given name was "Professor".

And there's more!

Professor Cole, PhD,Professor Cole, PhD,

James Hansen's evil twin is spotted. Or maybe the Hansen we're seeing in the media is the evil twin:

James Hansen, PhD,

I looked quickly for a couple of well known signatories of the first petition who've died since. Fred Seitz had an asterisk (not explained but I assumed meant to indicate the fact that he's dead)

Chauncey Starr was in the list without an asterisk. And as Nick hinted Harner Selvidge died 10 years ago.

My guess is that they have kept all the names from the 1997 petition, regardless of the fact that some may have changed their mind since then, or may no longer be with us, and therefore unable to assess the evidence.

By John Quiggin (not verified) on 21 May 2008 #permalink

Yes. They say that the majority have signed this time round, so I guess that means they got at least 16,000 this time. (Some of which would be re-signing.)

Ahh, Neil, you should have learnt by now that when I say something, I mean it. Have Fred, Upbeat, Slioch and myself taught you nothing?
Funnily enough I do agree some of the stories the Scotsman runs are a bit flimsy, often they have been reported before, but that is down to the Scotsmans poor reportings.

Anyway, lets see, Seitz's letter itself is fairly dull, lots of claims which are untrue.
The "peer reviewed paper" they tout makes some really stupid mistakes:
They use a graph of the Sargasso sea temperature to suggest to the unwary reader that temperatures now are cooler than they were a thousand and more years ago. This is wrong and stupid, for obvious reasons.
They then waffle on about glaciers melting, but forget that the scientists have nailed down the various influences upon glacier melts and they all agree with AGW. THey then have a graph of solar activity, but neglect to lay temperature on it, because that would show that the solar activity is not to blame for the last 30 years of rising temperature...
Only they do it later, and use the contiguous USA in order to make their point, which is a form of lying, because actually we are concerned with teh global temperature. Even you will admit there is more to the world than the USA.

Theres a lot more, but I don't have time to take everything apart.

OK Guthrie

"Have Fred, Upbeat, Slioch and myself taught you nothing? Funnily enough I do agree some of the stories the Scotsman runs are a bit flimsy"

(A) The only thing you have taught is that the "environmental" crowd will barefacedly tell exactly the same lie week after week even though they know it has been disproven before.

(B) I have previously challenged you & indeed many of your ilk to provide a single instance of an eco-catastrophe story which, over time, has proven very largely or entirely untrue. Global warming was preceded by the Global Ice Age scare which proved equally dishonest.

Nobody on the eco-fascist side has EVER been able to name a single such story that turned out to be true out of hundreds.

I asked you to name a single one of the "inaccuracies" we have your solemn word you saw in my letter. You cannot produce even one & have merely attempted to change the subject.

I accept this lie merely represents the very highest standard of honesty of which genocidal eco-Nazis such as yourself & those who do not dissociate themselves from such scum are capable.

Ahhh, Neil, still the same as always.
Lets see- back in the good old days, the pollution was so bad rivers were wiped out. Various predictions were made, and so the pollution was stopped, and the rivers recovered. Then we had species heading for extinction, I'm sure the older posteers can give chapter and verse, and after the alarm was raised, much work was done to avoid them going extinct.

And the global ice age scare was not scientific. ONly politically minded nonentities like yourself ever bring it up, because of your narrow world view.
I note you have nothing more to say about the Oregon petition.

Global warming was preceded by the Global Ice Age scare which proved equally dishonest.

Yeah that reminds me... Why aren't people claiming any more that "James Hansen predicted global cooling in the 1970's", which was all the rage until people discovered the paper was written by Rasool and Schneider? Whatever happened to S. Fred Singer's "Third World kleptocrats are trying to resurrect the New International Economic Order (NIEO)" theory?

Nah, the inactivists couldn't have conveniently forgotten your old memes in an act of Tlönic revisionism, right? Right?

Nobody on the eco-fascist side has EVER been able to name a single such story that turned out to be true out of hundreds.

bald eagle. you might want to do a google scholar search...

Global warming was preceded by the Global Ice Age scare which proved equally dishonest.

why don t you cite the "IPCC" equvalent of the ics age scare? or at least some scientific sources from the "ice age scare"?

genocidal eco-Nazis

genocidal eco-Nazis? was that an attempt to be funny?

OK os Hansen was a "scientific" alarmist on the Ice Age lie as well & indeed it didn't happen. Meranwhile Guthrie's total; of catastrophes which weren't lies are "things older readers will be able to supply details" of (apparetnly not Guth any more than you can supply any information to support your previous lies). IOndeed the only example anybody can find ofv a global environmental catastrophe which came true is the extinction of the Bald eagle - which it isn't.

I note that neither Sod nor anybody else has dissociated thjemselves from total dishonesty. Once again it proves that virtaully none of the parasitic genocidal eco-Nazis making up the movement possess even a remote shred of honesty (otherwise I suppose they wouldn't be promoting these lies.

PS

Well, global environmental catastrophe is such an odd thing to say. What on earth do you define as a global environmental catastrophe? So far forest destruction, careless intensive farming, and careless use of pesticides, as well as transfer of alien species, such as cane toads, Japanese knotweed, (thats one right in your back garden, Neil), zebra mussels, and several other things, all add up to major probalems. The actual crisis is Global warming, but since we know you don't know any of the science, and think environemntalists are out to kill everyone off, you don't believe it is.

Oh, and I know we all make mistakes when typing, but you really need to be more careful.

Hey, will you guys quit squabbling; have a little respect for the dead....Raynal W. Andrews, departed this life 28.11.2000...Vincent O. Altemose, 32 years gone, it seems but a moment ago...

No i don't regard rhodedendrons in somebody's garden as a global catastrophe & since you are driven to pretend it is then you make my point.

A catastrophe would be "Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics" Perhaps when 1979 comes round again you will be proven not to be merely fascist parasties telling lies.

I note neither you nor anybody else here can provide a single one of the numerous "inaccuracies" you accuse me of. I am willing to accept your apology for being a liar.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 22 May 2008 #permalink

Neil:

OK os Hansen was a "scientific" alarmist on the Ice Age lie as well

No.

parasitic genocidal eco-Nazis

I smell another Godwin quinella coming...

Perhaps when 1979 comes round again you will be proven not to be merely fascist parasties telling lies.

Godwin quinella jackpot! Woohoo!

Yes he was though it is hardly surprising you Nazis would lie about that as well.

Godwin's law applies to people using "Nazi" as a term of gross exageration. The "environmental" movement believes in censorship, telling any "big lie" to promote fear, imprisoning people for being "deniers" & has killed far more people than Hitler. In what way is calling such people Nazis an exageration?

A catastrophe would be "Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics" Perhaps when 1979 comes round again you will be proven not to be merely fascist parasties telling lies.

and

Godwin's law applies to people using "Nazi" as a term of gross exageration. The "environmental" movement believes in censorship, telling any "big lie" to promote fear, imprisoning people for being "deniers" & has killed far more people than Hitler. In what way is calling such people Nazis an exageration?

show that it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you. please come back whe you finished primary school.

On the former I would tend to agree with you about the eco-fascist who made that prediction & the sort of liars who still treat him as a guru. On the other hand nobody can say I haven't made the effort or can say that there are any circumstances under which the eco crowd will be swayed by or even interested in mere truth when they have so many flamboyant lies.

I trust nobody with any integrity whatsoever will ever at any time in the future suggest that the eco-fascists are remotely concerned with fact based discussion.

By neil Craig (not verified) on 22 May 2008 #permalink

Neil:

imprisoning people for being "deniers" [...] In what way is calling such people Nazis an exageration?

Ah yes, burning "deniers" at the stake in a gulag situated in Auschwitz. That's totally not an exaggeration.

By the way, you just achieved a Godwin 7-peat. Graham Young can't hold a candle to you.

FUD analysis of Neil Craig at: May 22, 2008 11:42 AM [kill]â[hide comment] (after which I'll be activating [kill]:

Words in comment: 97

FUD phrases:

o the eco-fascist
o liars
o a guru
o the eco crowd
o they have so many flamboyant lies
o the eco-fascists
o [not] concerned with fact based discussion

% of comment in FUD phrase: 23.7

FUD score: 7 of 10

My, my: mighty impressive FUD purveyance, especially the repetition.

Rubber stamp or wingnut-provided macro for that templated argumentation?

Best,

D

Neil:

You wouldn't care to specify a list of which environmentalists you feel are mostly responsible for more deaths than the Nazis, per chance? Lets just say the top ten.

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 22 May 2008 #permalink

I mean it would be pretty important, what with Nuremburg as a precedent and all. Don't you think?

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 22 May 2008 #permalink

Betula wrote:

Just curious....

Could someone please provide a list of IPCC authors that includes each of their scientific backgrounds.

I would also like to see a list of the names of the 2500 scientists that reviewed the reports, along with their backgrounds.

While were at it.....what percentage of the 2500 scientists (if they are all scientists) makes up the consensus.

Betula, I think it's fantastic that you're curious! I encourage you to put your curiousity to good use, do the necessary research to find the answers to these questions, and then report back to us with the information. I realize this seems like a large task, but if you start now and don't waste time with blog commenting, you'll be finished in no time! Good luck!

By the way, Betula, I checked the first five names on the Oregon petition listed for the state of Montana. Since you're a curious person, I know you'll want me to share the information I found on each of the signers.

David J. Abbott has a family medical practice in Harve, MT.

Frank Addison Albini, PhD, (1936-2005), was a forest fire behavior scientist.

Corby G. Anderson, PhD is a metallurgical engineer specializing in pyrometallurgy. According to his Montana Tech profile, "he has served successfully as an expert witness on several international mining cases."

William Ballard, PhD is the CEO of Ballard Petroleum. According to the Ballard Petroleum website:
"Headquartered in Billings, Montana, Ballard Petroleum Holdings LLC is a privately held, independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, development, production and exploration of oil and natural gas reserves primarily in the Rocky Mountain States.

David W. Ballard is the President of Ballard Petroleum.

I hope you find this information enlightening, Betula. Cheers!

By Cyrus Pinkerton (not verified) on 22 May 2008 #permalink

Dano #79- no, think more like self hypnosis.
Does 7/10 get him into the premier league?

Cyrus....

That's great! Only 31,067 to go! Let me know when your finished..... i'm just curious.

By the way, if 90% of them don't pan out, that leaves 600 more than the 2500 reviewers of the IPCC, which, by the way, aren't all scientist.

And while we are chatting, check out thread #20.

Just so you know, if you have enjoyed the comfort of Air conditioning over the last 10 years or so....you are part of the problem.

May God have mercy on your soul.

I understand Neil Craig is a big fan of 'State of Fear' by Michael Crighton. In it a fictional character says that the book silent spring reduced the use of DDT, then more people died from Malaria than were killed by Hitler. It ignores the dangers of DDT, and that it wasnt banned, and that it doesnt work very well. Aside from this, the book does have some amusing moments. I blame the Iluminati myself, I think they have hypnotised Neil in order to distract from the profits made by global oil companies.

if 90% of them don't pan out

Betula thinks that, even if 90% of the names in the Oregan Petition are bogus, the petition is still an honest piece of work.

After all, Clinton Did It Too (CDIT), right?

Neil, mate, a word of advice.

You are much, much more likely to persuade and convince your audience if you refrain from using such terms as "genocidal eco-nazis" and "parastic eco-fascists". You see, for some strange reason, it's generally considered that people who make such...how should we say...exagerated claims without a shred of evidence are...how to sugar-coat this... somewhat mentally unhinged.

Try and follow me now. The way "science" works is with "evidence". Simply saying something doesn't make it so. So, unless you've got something approaching evidence that the "environmental crowd" has contributed to mass genocide, then it's highly unlikely you'll be taken seriously.

Kapish?

Jody as the respondent who shows an interest in facts the "more than Hitler" figure of about 70 million is the number of people, mainly African children killed because of banning DDT ("This is as good a way to get rid of them as any"- Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund). Before it was prevented malaria deaths were down to about 100,000 a year but are now 2 million.

Check http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

Martin Salter MP gives us his word that DDT "doesn't work very well" but the facts say otherwise & that it has "dangers" though no human has ever been harmed by the stuff & even the evidence that it thinned some birds shells is extremely dodgy. I suppose this is the sort of blatant dishonesty we expect from MPs. Or perhaps he would like to produce some evidence of his assertions?

Chris the facts are clear. The eco movement has, in this campaign alone (there are other though with a lesser death toll) killed more people than Hitler. This is a statement of fact & therefore not an exageration. Therefore the term genocidal eco-fascist is merely factual. I might, with more justice, say that I wll refuse to listen to anybody from the eco side who exagerates their integrity by not starting off admitting to participation in such Holocausts - but I don't.

Neil writes:

Jody as the respondent who shows an interest in facts the "more than Hitler" figure of about 70 million is the number of people, mainly African children killed because of banning DDT

Neil, DDT was never banned in Africa.

Not true. Africa is not a single state butt the US & other governments, under pressure from the eco-Nazis made it a condition of continuing to receive aid that the individual countries banned it.

It is interesting to see many eco-fascists, having spent years boasting about how they succeeded in banning DDT & thereby saved lives are now saying they didn't & therby didn't kill people. Both claims cannot be true thaough they can both be at least partly (the bit about not killing people) untrue.

Is Neil abiding by some sort of samurai code that says that he must make a Nazi comparison in each and every one of his posts?

Or is he just obsessed with Nazis?

Your link confirms what I said about the attempt to pretend they had nothing to do with any bans. It says "DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial uses, and that it is in use in at least 11 countries". The obvious contradiction is that there are far more than 11 countries on the planet, even far more than 11 in malarial areas.

The ban was enforced in the manner I said & has caused the unneccessary deaths of 70 million. Perhaps the comparison between the Green movement & the Nazis is unjust but if so the numbers show it unjust to Hitler.

Bi...

"After all, Clinton Did It Too (CDIT), right?"

What does this mean? What did Clinton do? Clinton signed a petition claiming he was a climate scientist??

I thought it was just the opposite, Clinton refused to sign (Kyoto) despite climate scientist's claims.

I'm confused,please explain.

Not only is Neil an idiot....he can't read.

Damnit. A few years ago I had a really good WHO publication with a perfect graph illustrating this point, but this is the best figure I can find replicating it.

Neil, see here:
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/15/4/564/T3
There, you can clearly see that malaria deaths are down everywhere in the world except in sub-Saharan Africa. That is, malaria control succeeded at reducing malaria deaths everywhere, even after DDT was banned. However, Africa goes WAY up. (You can also see that the annual rate never goes below half a million and is only at 1 million now, so your figures are bunk.)

But here's the curious fact: there was never any plan to eradicate malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, even before the DDT ban. It was simply deemed too difficult and it was never attempted. So all of those malaria deaths cannot possibly be attributed to the DDT ban on agricultural use, since they would have happened anyway. And in the REST of the world, where eradication was actually attempted, the DDT ban on agricultural use has NOT led to a resurgence in malaria.

So, what are you basing your argument on, again?

In 1990 there were around 856 000 deaths from the disease, some 731 000 in sub-Saharan Africa (Annex 1).

Neil Craig seems to be under the impression that the death rate shot up 1.5 to 2.7 million the moment malaria was, um, "banned", whenever that was.

Bigcitylib decided to test their quality control by signing using a fake name and fake qualifications. He's on the list.

UPDATE: Bigcitylib in fact DID NOT make the list....see his post.

Saurabh, actually there was a global eradication program in the 50s and 60s based on ddt, then universally effective and chloroquine, similar. It failed partly due to resistance and partly implementation shortcomings, not a ban. At least that is the feeling from those at london and also liverpool schools of tropical medicine. But what would i know? Oh yes, names Neil?
Dr Jody Aberdein, hospital for tropical diseases, london.

By Jody Aberdein (not verified) on 23 May 2008 #permalink

Yup, Neil is flailing again.
Using a 12 year old source for your yearly death figures is not exactly helpful...
After all, numbers can change each year.

For example, according to the world malaria report 2005, Malaria results in over 1 million deaths a year.
http://rbm.who.int/wmr2005/html/introduction.htm

Jody, please read my post again. I'm not contradicting anything you're saying EXCEPT that the "global" eradication campaign was never implemented in most of sub-saharan Africa; at least, according to every source I've read on the subject. See http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/index.htm for example. However, if you have some sources indicating otherwise (that eradication WAS pursued in sub-saharan Africa) please let me know.

Neil, mate... you just don't listen. So I'll break it down into teensy, tiny little pieces that hopefully you're able to digest before you pop a vein in an "eco-nazi" inspired fit of rage.

So... here goes... welcome to "arguing a position club":

The first rule of arguing a position club is: saying something does not make it so;

The second rule of arguing a position club is: saying something does not make it so;

The third rule of arguing a position club is: you need to provide evidence to support you claims.

Did I mention that just saying something doesn't make it so?

Let me use an example.

Suppose I say that Al Gore is a fit, trim individual who no person in their right mind could describe as being overweight.

Now, did you notice what I did there? I made a claim (Al Gore is not fat) BUT (now try to follow me here) my saying so doesn't mean that it is true. For example, you could refute my position by pointing to evidence (say a photo like this one http://limerlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/al-gore-fat.jpg ). You would win this argument! Just because I say Al Gore is not fat, doesn't mean his is not fat! See!?!

Sooooooo, lets review...

You've made the claim:

"The eco movement has, in this campaign alone (there are other though with a lesser death toll) killed more people than Hitler. This is a statement of fact & therefore not an exageration. Therefore the term genocidal eco-fascist is merely factual."

Now...stay close Neil, we're almost there... just beacause you say it DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!

In order to convince me of your claim, you would have to:
Prove to me, using evidence (it's pronounced EV-E-DENSE) that:

1. More people than Hitler have died from X;
2. That the deaths were directly or indirectly caused by campaign Y;
3. Campaign Y was orcestrated by the "eco-movement".

(While you're at it, you could give a definition of "eco-movement", given that there really is no coherent, unified environmental movement, and dispirate groups often have very different opinions on matters. )

Now, can you see how using the following formula may be more effective at convincing others of your point, rather than a bunch of incoherent babble, reality challenged observations and comparisons of environmentalists to mass-murdering war criminals?

Mr. Craig:

Your position now seems to have slipped to "DDT is banned because although it is legal to use it, people won't pay for it." What kind of socialist anti-freedom bunch are you, that you give yourselves the right to tell other people what to do with their money?

Have you or those sites you cite, junkscience et al, ever donated a penny to p0rovide DDT for these poor dying people you are so upset over? Aren't you DDT banners as much as anyone else you sneer at? Or are you all living in such terror of the ecoterrorist hitlers?

More people than Hitler have died from X;

As stated, that should be pretty easy to find evidence for. Are you keeping the bar nice and low because Neil seems to be rather a fool?

To true pough, to true...

Perhaps I should have typed:

"more people have been killed by X than were killed by Hitler".

That's what I would have typed had I had my mind on the job of being patronising.

WW2 is generaly accepted to have killed about 50 million people of whom 2/3rds were in Europe. As 70 million is a larger number than 33 million the statement stands.

I have already said how the ban was imposed - on a country by country basis by makimg aid dependent on banning. Indeed the fact that the deaths are most strongly concentrated in Africa, whose governments are so heavily dependent on "aid" shows how brutally effective that process has been.

ChrisC I have posted a couple of links here to prove points. If you have chosen not to read them then that does not mean they do not exist.

That you have demanded evidence of the "environmental" movement being involved in this proves you have not done so or you would have read:

"The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."

(I have already quoted this eminent eco-Nazi earlier & I have to agree with him that this genocide was indeed one of the earliest examples of the eco-fascists flexing their muscles)

Jody & Saurabb debate whether there ever was, or could be a campaign to eliminate malaria. Jody is quite right that there was but that it could not continue once killing mosquitos by DDT had become politically incorrect. Saurabb is entirely wrong to say that Africa is so inherently savage that on such eradication plan could have been envisaged. Smallpox was entirely eliminated from humanity by just such a programme & the last case was cured in Ethiopia (which is in Africa). It is probable that elominating 100% of the deaths, like smallpox, might not have been possible. 99.9% could have been had the eco-Nazi movement not used DDT as a scare story to grow their power.

bi-LJI the interesting thing about the Oregon Petition is that, despite an almost total censorship by the media & some assertions to the contrary by eco-fascists, it exists & that consequently claims of a consensus are lies. I have already said this & mere repetition is the weapon of the fanatic or advertiser not of reasoned debate. If, on the other hand, you have something interesting (& truthful) to say about the petition I am sure we would all be interested/surprised.

Neil Craig opines:

Saurabb [sic] is entirely wrong to say that Africa is so inherently savage that on such eradication plan could have been envisaged. Smallpox was entirely eliminated from humanity by just such a programme & the last case was cured in Ethiopia (which is in Africa). It is probable that elominating [sic] 100% of the deaths, like smallpox, might not have been possible. 99.9% could have been had the eco-Nazi movement not used DDT as a scare story to grow their power.

Neil, you CANNOT compare malaria with smallpox. The ontogenies, the ecologies and the host immunological responses of the two diseases are parsecs apart, and any attempt to make a comparison is clumsy beyond comprehension.

As to your comment that a smallpox-like eradication program could have resulted in 99.9% of malaria deaths being prevented...

Dear God, you have no idea of disease processes at all, do you?

Note - that last question was rhetorical only. The answer is patently obvious, for anyone with half a clue, to see.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

By the long words you mean that smallpox travels only through human vectors while malaria passes through humans & insects. That is precisely why I said I thought it would be impossible to exterminate malaria 100% as was done with smallpox (except in Suar's universe where any such eradication programme in Africa is, we are assured, impossible).

By "parsec" you mean that that the diseases are dissimilar. You have clearly learned your science from the Han Solo School of Scientific Sounding Bull.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Saurabh:

Apologies indeed, although termed 'Global Malaria Eradication Program' you are of course correct.

Neil:

Firstly: names please?

Secondly: perhaps you could then tell us the relevence of vector species and transmission efficiency, breeding site frequency and location, biting and resting preferences, and annual innoculation rate in coming up with your rather specific suggestion that 99.9% should be achievable?

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Actually, Neil Craig, I learned my science through 15 years in biomedical research and diagnostic pathology, followed by 11 years to date in ecology and population biology.

Oh, and I gleaned a little something from my undergrad degree, a postgrad diploma, a masters degree, and my soon-to-be completed PhD.

The 'fact' that "smallpox travels only through human vectors while malaria passes through humans & insects" is a small part of the very much greater problem of trying to compare the two diseases. If this is not apparent to you, and if you think that I have "learned [my] science from the Han Solo School of Scientific Sounding Bull", it might be that you have not in fact learned your science at all.

Um, scratch 'might be', and replace with 'is'.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Neil Craig is a complete denier; he denies AGW and its effects; he denies the truth about malaria and DDT; he even denies the effects of tobacco smoke on human health.

"In 2004 I was the only person at conference to speak directly against bringing in the smoking ban on the grounds that the alleged medical evidence that it was a serious health hazard was not scientifically supportable".

see: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5fwtrc

He was so shunned by parties of all political stripes that he had to form his own party to gain a chance at standing as a candidate for the Scottish Parliament. The 9%Growth Party was started by him so that he could be a candidate.

He is also a great follower of science fiction, unfortunately, he does not appear to be able to separate "science fiction" from "science fact".

"I also grew to love not merely science fiction & the future it promised but also the scientific method as the best, perhaps only, tool to understand the world. Unlike the "Green" movement which says we should try to get through our lives without changing anything I believe that if the universe has a purpose it is that humans learn to understand & control it".

What you are spouting has nothing to do with the "scientific method". Learn some science before claiming to know all about the "scientific method".

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Jody if you knew anything whatsoever about tropical disease transmission you would already be aware that, since smallpox only exists in humans it can be wiped out 100% by innoculating all humans in the area whereas diseases that travel between species can retain a reservoir of infection in other species (I will not detail the problems inherent in innoculating all flies).

One, relatively succesful but dishonest method of argument is to go on & on demanding ever more abstruse technical details even though they clearly have no real relevance - this is, as you & some others here demonstrate so ably, a common eco-Nazi tactic since, without the truth to rely on it is the best you have. Were I so inclined I could demand you not only identify the eco-fascists who tried to fraudulently insert names in the Oregon Petition, but also their phone numbers & mother's maiden names or else your case would be lies. Obvuiously I have no need for such tactics since it is anyway.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Amazing Bernard how many people on eco-fascist debates claim to have enormous qualifications which obviously cannot be checked & then prove to have a profound ignorance of the subject they claim mastery of. Pity that in all that time allegedly spent learning you never found out that a parsec is not unit of biological differentiation.

Thank you for checking Ian. I do indeed deny the claims about passive smoke being a major killer for reasons which, having read my work you clearly understand.

I'm not sure if the term "complete denier" can ever have any rational meaning but it is obvious from what you have quoted that I do not deny the scientific method as those innumerate "eco" believers in magic do. I take it, from the way you chose that particular passage to reprint you think showing my comitment to truth & progress helps your cause. Obviosly only among those committed to the opposite. you should get out more.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Jody if you knew anything whatsoever about tropical disease transmission...

Said by an insane loon to a woman who's a professional in the field.

Neil Craig.

I am more than happy to supply copies of my testamurs to Tim Lambert to verify.

Or would you prefer that I launch into a detailed technical breakdown of the functioning of a flow cytometer, or of an electron microscope? How about a monolog on the pharmacology haemostatic management? Perhaps I could demonstrate my bona fides by providing a detailed description of the cellular and humoral elements of the immune systems, with it's non-specific and its adaptive branches, and outline the delightful processes of immunoglobulin gene rearrangement that provide us with the adaptive immunity that we have.

And even if I wasn't able to do so, any half-competent biologist would recognise the truth of my points in the previous post. The fact that you don't so recognise them simply shows that you have no biological competence.

Oh, and if you had even half a gram of functioning brain matter you'd have figured out how to check Jody's creds before you spat out "Jody if you knew anything whatsoever about tropical disease transmission...". I've known of Jody's reputation for years, and it absolutely shows your incompetence in even the basic fundamentals of the biology of disease that you attempted to denigrate him in the fashion that you did.

You are a clumsy and ignorant buffoon Neil, and if you had any capacity to engage in the science of disease processes you would address the points raised, rather than attempt to besmirch the reputations of the people who recognise you for the twit that you are, and who are calling you to account for your idiodicy.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Another dishonest tactic would be to spout paragraphs of increasingly fervent nonsense whilst studiously avoiding a simple and relevent question. Continuing this discussion is becoming less appealing than a dose of falciparum from the Thai Burmese border.

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Oh, and Neil, for what it's worth I know full-well what a parsec is, and that it has nothing to do with biology. You obviously have no capacity for hyperbolic metaphor, unless it is to promulgate untruth.

It becomes ever more transparent to the audience here that there are many multiples of parsecs between actual reality, and the perception that you hold of same.

Pull your head in mate. It's only good for a piñata otherwise.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

> If, on the other hand, you have something interesting (& truthful) to say about the petition I am sure we would all be interested/surprised.

Well, since you asked, I'm going to say something interesting about the petition:

The so-called Oregan Petition is unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable.

And to show this, I'm going to make some counter-claims:

1. Most of the 31,000+ "signatories" of the petition were in fact ripped from a totally different petition, the Mars Proclamation.
2. The Mars Proclamation says that the greatest threat to world peace today is chocolate rain.
3. There is currently a worldwide conspiracy to suppress all mention of the Mars Proclamation in both the media and the blogosphere.

So here's what my counter-claims have to do with the Oregan Petition's testability: If you can't disprove my Mars Proclamation hypothesis, then it follows that the Oregan Petition is untestable.

Quick exercise for Neil: can you find a name on the Oregan Petition, and prove -- beyond reasonable doubt -- that the name did not come from the Mars Proclamation?

(No, it is not sufficient to get a person on the list to tell us that he didn't sign any Mars Declaration. After all, the Mars Proclamation signatory may actually be a different person who happens to have the same name, come from the same state, and have the same academic degrees.)

Neil, continuing to reinvent history, writes:

I have already said how the ban was imposed - on a country by country basis by makimg aid dependent on banning.

Neil, DDT was never banned in the third world. No matter how many times you say it was, it wasn't. The ban exists purely in your mind, not in objective reality.

I don't think your example holds up, bi - the Oregon petition is at least partially testable, by finding people who will admit to having signed it. At least some subset of the respondents can probably be identified. The full list is almost certainly not testable, as bigcitylib's experience seems to show, but that's a different proposition.

>[Saurabh] is entirely wrong to say that Africa is so inherently savage that on such eradication plan could have been envisaged.

I didn't say that an eradication plan is impossible in Africa, I said that the people who actually carried out the eradication campaign in the 50s (the World Health Organization) decided that it would be too hard to try it in Africa. That's a historical fact. There was NO malaria eradication campaign in Africa, and so the DDT debate has no bearing on malaria deaths there.

I'd like to applaud the people who have answered Neil Craig, and apologise for poking him in the first place to see if he would spout anything entertaining.

But I would be interested to know how he found this place.

Since Neil continues to call environmentalists and anyone who agrees with them about anything "eco-fascists" and "eco-Nazis," I propose that we call folks of Neil's stripe "eco-Commies."

Bear with me. The worst polluter in world history, among nation-states, was probably the old Soviet Union. The PRC is not much better, especially as it now floods its skies with the choking effluents of coal-fired power plants. And they don't bother with environmental impact statements when they plan a new nuclear power plant in North Korea.

And the root of Communist indifference to the environment is the same root as Neil's hatred of it -- the idea that industrial progress, in and of itself, is scientific progress, and that having it justifies doing any damage to the environment whatsoever.

Don't condemn us SF freaks. I'm a science-fiction writer myself, with two books due out this year, and another (horror rather than SF) next year. And I love science, but my love of science consists of wanting to learn more of it, and in concern for accuracy. Many of my fellow SF writers share it. The cadre of far-right SF writers (Heinlein, the Mussolini admirer Jerry Pournelle, and the Hispanic-hating Larry Niven) are getting old and gray (if not, like Heinlein, dead), and are being replaced by writers who have a more balanced and intelligent view of science and progress.

I believe in science and in scientific progress more, I would say, than Neil does. I look forward to bringing our population under control with new inventions in the field of birth control. I look forward to advances in energy conservation with technological developments like cogeneration and smart energy grids. And I look forward to mitigation of global warming and control of pollution due to technological innovation in solar photovoltaic and solar thermal power, wind power, site geothermal and hot dry rock geothermal power, tidal power, and cellulose and algal biofuels.

It's not the environmentalists who have anything to fear from science. It's the rightist crazies who think that if a scientific discovery threatens their ideology, it can't be true. Science is on the side of environmentalism, not the global warming deniers and slanderers of Rachel Carson. They will become as relevant as creationists, and for the same reason.

What they continually fail to appreciate, along I might add with some of the more rabid environmentalists, is that is was science which gave birth to environmentalism and science continues to provide its main arguments.

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 24 May 2008 #permalink

Also, Neil, a parsec is a real technical term. It's a measure of distance used in astronomy. An object with a trigonometric stellar PARallax of one SECond of arc is said to be at one parsec distance. A parsec is about 3.261 light-years.

Neil Craig: Begone, foul troll.

Guthrie, 'But I would be interested to know how he found this place'. See his website 'http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/'
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 'GLOBAL WARMING - THE DEBATE IS OVER'
Someone posted the link to this site.

Ray C. I find his arguments amusing, its great to see opinions like his taken apart on sites like this, well done all contributors. And at least he is brave enough to angue, one day he may even learn something.

Im hoping to prove shooting animals and fishing is beneficial to the fish, as well as being a source of peace and tranquility to humankind. This mighte take some time.

After some very detailed and polite responses...
If I may be allowed...
Neil...You're an IDIOT!

Whenever the focus is partisan political, assigning blame according to affiliation, there is a kind of dishonesty at work, since the intent appears to be to make those you disagree with look bad (eco-nasties in this case) without regard to best available information or any real information at all. It's about showing loyalty to a side - and the more outrageous and adamant in the face of contrary information, the clearer the proclamation of loyalty. You are clearly very, very loyal to your political side Neil.

Too bad that people you disagree with aren't part of a single political entity (or even coalition of them), aren't mass-murderers in the line of promoting the mythical agenda you so oppose and aren't likely to change their minds in the face of the outrageous accusations you level at them. At best you will be provocative enough to get some ill-thought out comments from passionate people that might be used against them. Too bad that it also is counterproductive even to whatever polical agenda you feel is served by attacking it's "enemies". You also picked a forum where you are unlikely to get much positive response such tactics.

To me you appear to be anti-knowledge - you don't want issues like climate change or disease control done by people who actually study such things deeply first, but done by those with the correct political outlook. It's what you accuse those here of! Is it a case of because you do, you can easily believe those you disagree with do too?

saurabh:

I don't think your example holds up, bi - the Oregon petition is at least partially testable, by finding people who will admit to having signed it. At least some subset of the respondents can probably be identified.

It's only testable in one direction, which is the problem. There's no set of potential observations which allow me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a certain name did not come from a real signatory.

The FAQ says,

> Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

> In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories - real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition - who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

By the same standards, my Mars Proclamation hypothesis is similarly unfalsifiable.

If you want to see more of where NEil is coming from, he is the founder and candidate for "The 9% growth party", which believes that:

"9% GROWTH PARTY is committed to long term growth at a rate reaching 9% per annum. Experience with the world's most successful economies shows that this can be achieved by ideas close to those of the founders of Liberalism. We also believe that virtually all economic progress follows from scientific & technological progress, that high technology is inately more efficient & thus less polluting & that scientific progress embodies the best of the human spirit."

http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/
Thus he ignores the past 200 years of history and the changes in the world since his dream past. Not to mention the fact that the only economies which grow at 9% are the ones which are comparatively underdeveloped in the first place. No "developed" country can manage that kind of growth rate.

I think so, yes.
I think its similar to the way that people who are new to the denialist game, or indeed simply uninformed, continuously comment about the weather, and ask how we can predict climate and not weather. Its sort of a first baby step to make, and intelligent people get beyond it. Or think of Heinlein, lots of people liked Heinlein when they were young, then they grew up and realised the real world wasn't like that.

Thank you Bi-LJ for proving yet again that it is impossible for you eco-Nazis to say anything critical about the Oregon Petition which is is both interesting & truthful (I specified both). I have no doubt you will continue saying things which lack any trace of truth - why break the habits of a lifetime?

I note that in all the erudite arguments put against me the only alleged facts are that DDT has never been banned anywhere, which is a lie & that no developed country has ever achieve a 9% growth rate (Ireland, Hong Kong, Iceland etc being figments of the imagination). The rest is merely saying "begone", "eco-commie", "unfalsifiable", "idiot" sorry "IDIOT" (isn't that more convincing), "insane" & suchlike nonsense.

While I accept that all these represent the very highest standard of intellectual debate & indeed honesty to which the "environmental" movement aspires I think you prove the term co-Nazi not to be the hyperbole Barton assures us I am incapable of but to be simple fact.

Nobody appears able to dispute, sticking purely to facts, that the statement that the "environmental" movement has killed far more people than Hitler is not hyperbole but solid fact

Still Barton, as an apparent SF writer has, finally, been able to look up what a parsec is - well done.

Keep it up Neil.

The beauty of the internet is that you leave an evidential trail of your idiocy for all time (or at least for as long as there are computers, and an electricity supply in which to connect them) as you wander through its electronic halls, and one day someone might take the time to catalog your path to complete and utter ignominy.

You really have no idea where it is that you trip up, do you? And you really, really don't understand either why it is that you owe Jody a very humble and unreserved apology, do you?

Way to go, documenting yourself for posterity!

I have to admire a bloke who is so certain of his righteouness in the face of overwhelming contradictory, objective evidence; but I also feel a little twinge of sympathy when I think about the crushing chagrin you would experience if you were to ever realise the errors of your way.

It's only a little twinge though. About as little as a parsec is big.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 May 2008 #permalink

From that fount of knowledge, Wikipedia:

"The Nine Per Cent Growth Party is a minor political party in Scotland. It is registered with the Electoral Commission. In May 2007, the party stood candidates on the regional lists in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, and had a candidate for the local council elections of the same year. Standing in the Glasgow Regional List for the Scottish parliament, the party finished last of 23 candidates receiving only 80 votes (0.04%) of 207,757 votes cast. This was a new record low vote."

I'm not sure whether to commend the citizens of Glasgow on their good sense, or to worry about the 80. I guess it would take a science fiction author to fully comprehend the effect of them all in a room together: it boggles my imagination.

The 9% growth party?!

After my guffaws and coughing and wheezing and aching ribs had calmed down, I realised that you apparently are serious!

Please Neil, I'd love to see a precise of your manifesto that shows the comprehensive analysis of how such growth can be sustained beyond a very short term in a closed system (id est - the earth). Note: I expect that there would be no 'externalities' defined, as we are speaking of 'sustained', and I would also expect the concept of exponential expansion and its knock-on effects to be thoroughly addressed.

You've never farmed, or done cell culture, or even seriously gardened, have you? Otherwise you would have a better understanding of what lies on the obverse face of the coin on which growth occupies one side...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 May 2008 #permalink

31,000 scientists.

12 peer reviewed articles,most from before 1996.

That's some impressive sciencing, guys!

Nobody appears able to dispute, sticking purely to facts, that the statement that the "environmental" movement has killed far more people than Hitler is not hyperbole but solid fact.

I dispute it, but more importantly, Reality disputes it. I suggest you take Reality out to a movie and maybe coffee afterwards. Nothing fancy. Just get to know each other a little bit.

"#146Nobody appears able to dispute, sticking purely to facts, that the statement that the "environmental" movement has killed far more people than Hitler is not hyperbole but solid fact.
I dispute it"

But you don't dispute it on any factual basis which is what I said. Neither, despite repeated invitations, do any other eco-Nazis here.

Bernie I will be quite happy to see the pearls of wisdom I placed before you recorded for future view. As Guthrie will confirm I recently had a letter in the Scotsman where I drew attention to my having had a letter published 2 years previously doubting that temperature is rising catastrophicly to which an eminent cleric had brought the full weight of his scientific expertise to bear to say should not have been published because there was no scientific dispute on the matter. There are other examples.

I fully expect all on this thread except myself to be hesitant about revealing their assertions when you eco-Nazis return to threatening us with a new ice age.

As regards Bernie's conceivably sincere desire to find how long term growth is sustainable I suggest reading http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
I will be amused to see Bernie (or anybody else here) showing in what way the professor is wrong.

"But you don't dispute it on any factual basis"

Yes I do. But it's your assertion, so prove it. First off, prove that DDT was banned. A link to the international treaty or decree that banned it would be a good place to start.

Go ahead, show me the ban. Please? Now? Just one link.

What McCarthy actually wrote:

> Q. What about fuel for cars?

> A. The world will run out of petroleum from oil wells. Maybe in 20 years, but more likely in 50 to 100 years. [...]

Somehow Neil managed to turn McCarthy's words into something supporting his inactivist position that we're "eco-fascists".

Neil:

> Bernie I will be quite happy to see the pearls of wisdom I placed before you recorded for future view.

You know, those "pearls of wisdom" have already appeared in bulk all over the Internets Tubes. A vintage picture of a naked Ayn Rand will be infinitely more valuable (in every sense of the word) than your "pearls of wisdom".

~~~

guthrie:

> I think its similar to the way that people who are new to the denialist game, or indeed simply uninformed, continuously comment about the weather, and ask how we can predict climate and not weather. Its sort of a first baby step to make, and intelligent people get beyond it.

Yeah... but... founding a whole new political party immediately after, that sounds a bit too barmy for me. Even the narcissistic whore known as Jackie Passey had enough sense to join an existing libertarian party. Or is Scotland indeed that starved for libertarian parties?

Neil:

> The rest is merely saying "begone", "eco-commie", "unfalsifiable", "idiot" sorry "IDIOT" (isn't that more convincing), "insane" & suchlike nonsense.

The Oregan Petition is unfalsifiable, by virtue of the fact that nobody can propose any potential set of observations that will show -- beyond reasonable doubt -- that a certain name on the petition did not come from a real signatory.

If you want to show that the Oregan Petition is verifiable and falsifiable, all you need to do is to provide such a potential set of observations.

Or you can just ignore the question and complain about all uses of the word "idiot" and thereby demonstrate the suitability of this very word.

Believe it or not, I've never looked into Neil craig further than glancing at his blog when the fancy takes me. It appears he was chucked out of the Liberal democrats. Presumably they were not sufficiently like the old liberals 200 years ago for his fancy.

There are however quite a few libertarians around, as well as some Objectivists. They mostly get letters in the newspapers, I can point you in the direction of some of them if you want a laugh.

Vagueofgodalming:

> Bi, you can only join a political party if they'll accept you.

Hah... then I guess my question is, is there no existing party of libertarians in Scotland whose ideology is close enough to Neil's that they may accept him?

(And apparently Scotland also has a "Adam Lyal's Witchery Tour Party", whose platform I know nothing about, but which somehow still did better than Neil's party...)

guthrie:

> I can point you in the direction of some of them if you want a laugh.

My suspicion is that I'll just roll my eyes. Unless there's some really creative stupidity which you're able to dig out. :)

Good Lord, Neil's back.

I had I think earlier asked for the top ten culprits so we could assess the evidence. Once again then: names?

In addition you may wish to peruse:

Killeen GF. Fillinger U. Kiche I. Gouagna LC. Knols BG.'Eradication of Anopheles gambiae from Brazil: lessons for malaria control in Africa?',The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2(10):618-27, 2002 Oct.

Which will point you in the direction of why DDT wasn't and won't be enough.

Jennifer Keiser, Burton H Singer, Jürg Utzinger,'Reducing the burden of malaria in different eco-epidemiological settings with environmental management: a systematic review', The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 5(11):695-78, 2005

Is a useful review of environmental modification.

This paper gives you the background and likely future place of DDT in malaria control:

http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/77/6_Suppl/249

Jody

By Jody Aberdein (not verified) on 26 May 2008 #permalink

Neil writes:

Still Barton, as an apparent SF writer has, finally, been able to look up what a parsec is - well done.

Son, I didn't have to look up anything. I've known what a parsec is since I was a teenager back in the '70s -- before Star Wars came out and Han Solo got it wrong. (Unless, as some fans argue, he was talking about a least-distance algorithm.)

Were this Survivor, NaziNaziNeil would be thrown off the island, however, since it is a blog, let's keep him about for the amusement value, although we do need protection against his chocolate rain.

So still no attempt at facts then.

Boris says there was no banning of DDT & that it all just went out of use for inexplicable reasons.

See http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.973/news_detail.asp
"The ban was supported by many aid agencies such as USAID, the WHO, the Norwegian Development Agency, and the Swedish Aid Agency, which contributed a large portion of public health aid to poor nations. These countries, dependent on aid, could not continue to use DDT after the ban. Many countries also stopped using DDT for fear that European countries would refuse to buy their agricultural exports. The ban on DDT thwarted progress in the eradication of malaria"
Which is EXACTLY how I said it was done.

Bi-LJ however demosntrates the very highest standard of honesty to be expected from the eco-Nazis. Having denounced me for saying long term growth is feraible & demanding a link decided, on reading it, to change the subject to oil. OK changing the subject rather than answereing is a dishonest practice & not one I would engage in but fairly common - the real disgrace is his lying by selective editing of what is said about oil.

He quote:

"Q. What about fuel for cars?

A. The world will run out of petroleum from oil wells. Maybe in 20 years, but more likely in 50 to 100 years. [...]"

What he deliberately omits is that the Professor is only refering to current reseves & says, in the next line:

"However, oil can be extracted from oil shale, from tar sands (as it is in Alberta, Canada) and synthesized from coal. These processes (except for tar sands) are too expensive to compete with just letting it just flow out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, but the technologies were developed when it was thought oil would run out soon. The costs would be affordable. Taking these sources into account we probably have several hundred years supply of oil"

As I say an example of the very highest standard of honesty to be expected from anybody in the eco-Nazi movement. While I expect the eco_nazis to continue accusing me of insanity etc I do not expect any of you to say there is anything
wrong with BJ's lying & stupid lying at that since he was bound to be found out) than any of you ever even suggested there was any moral dubiety on the part of the "environmentalist" who said that the genocide of 70 million people by DDT ban was "as good a way as any" of getting rid of them.

The environmentalist" movement is clearly proven to be whiolly corrupt, dishonest, racist & genocidal willing to tell absolutely any lie & censor or distrot absolutely any truth in its hysterical need to drag humanity back to the dark ages.

See http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.973/news_detail.asp "The ban was supported by many aid agencies such as USAID, the WHO, the Norwegian Development Agency, and the Swedish Aid Agency, which contributed a large portion of public health aid to poor nations. These countries, dependent on aid, could not continue to use DDT after the ban. Many countries also stopped using DDT for fear that European countries would refuse to buy their agricultural exports. The ban on DDT thwarted progress in the eradication of malaria" Which is EXACTLY how I said it was done.

just because a right wing web site puts the word FACTS in its title, doesn t make the things they write facts!

when people decide to stop doing something, then it is NOT a ban.

> Having denounced me for saying long term growth is feraible & demanding a link decided, on reading it, to change the subject to oil.

Oh wait... so Neil Craig doesn't see any link between long-term growth, energy, and oil. Holy crap. Even the long-time resident trolls here aren't _this_ dumb.

Maybe there's hope for Neil yet if -- for starters -- he decides to read and understand Popper's essay on falsifiability. Then again, I guess he's gone too far down the path of crankitude to do that.

Neil Craig.

How is it that you can ascribe all the lying and the ignorance of the facts to your much-loathed "eco-Nazis", and also to the diabolical medical establishment who would seem not to care about the devastation of malaria (a la your derision of Jody), whilst simultaneously persisting in not demonstrating even a very basic level of disease process, nor any ability to quote sensible, objective sources, or correcting your own misleading statements?

When clowns such as yourself come along I sometimes yield to train-wreck syndrome, and against my better judgement follow sources cited. As my cherished gran would say, "oh dear"...

I had a look at your link.

It is a treasure trove of silliness, and a desert of real fact.

McCarthy says:

"The complainers say that the present low prices of natural resources are illusory and do not reflect real costs. Elsewhere in these pages..., I show that overall shortages of resources are very unlikely, and the present low prices are not illusory, although there may be a moderate increase in energy costs during a transition from cheap oil to full use of nuclear energy.

Keeping in mind that this page is 10 years old (as evidenced by "I was recently (1998 January) asked...", although other pages are apparently post 2002), McCarthy has been demonstrably shown by the intervening years that his ideas on the reality of the justification of "low costs" is wrong, if the prices we are paying for food, oil, metals, and just about any other commodity are to be believed (I wonder who would win the Ehrlich/Simon bet today?).

It seems that much of McCarthy's grasp of economics follows this fairytale optimism, and this is before coming to the point that he does not address in any convincing way the issue of unlimited growth in a resource-constrained (ie 'closed') system.

Yet you promote him as evidence to support your ideas.

At this page

McCarthy says:

"On the theory that chlorofluorocarbons put chlorine in the upper atmosphere which destroys ozone, their manufacture has been banned. A 90 percent reduction would have been just as effective and less economically disruptive, but industry seems to be adjusting to the ban.

The theory has widespread acceptance, but there are many scientifically respectable dissenters. Because ozone is regenerated all the time, if chlorofluorocarbons are the problem, the situation will return to normal. There has been much exaggeration of the effects on humans of the increases in UV-B that have actually occurred. Nevertheless, UV-B is harmful to some plants. Experiments with shielding plants from UV-B show that UV-B reduces growth in some plants even at normal levels.

Robert Parson has an FAQ [linked, but broken] about the causes of the ozone hole in the South Polar Regions. I don't know whether UV-B levels in the U.S. have increased significantly."

It seems that he is a CFC/ozone sceptic, but without a valid link it's hard to confirm this. Nevertheless his economic doomsaying about phasing out CFCs is shown by subsequent years to be misplaced, and his imputation of the lack of a causal relationship is these days untenable.

And you trust this guy?

His opinions on biodiversity are simply misinformed and/or misrepresentative twaddle:

"Q. Is humanity [sic] suffering from an enormous loss of biodiversity.
A. The loss is quite small of the important or individually interesting species."

For heaven's sake, only rabid red-necks like Ian Mott, who lurks at Marohasy's blog, peddle this.

Further, it is apparent that he has no concept of the significant of salination, acid sulphate-based acidification, depleted groundwater, river-flow alteration, or any of a number of other water issues.

On thermodynamics, this gem:

"Q. Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics tell us that the lower the concentration of the ore, the more energy it takes to extract it?
A. It does indeed, but the energy required goes up very slowly as the concentration goes down. To separate one mole of a substance from n moles of a substrate requires an energy RT ln n according to the second law. According to this formula, it would pay to extract one atom of uranium from the entire earth. Of course, mineral extraction is more expensive than that, but the second law of thermodynamics isn't the reason."

and

"Various pessimists have cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a reason why civilization is doomed. The general idea is that the law shows that the system must run down. This is true of the universe as a whole, so far as we know, but the time-scale is billions of years. The earth is an open system, because it receives energy from the sun. Moreover, the uranium and thorium in the earth's crust can also supply us with energy for billions of years."

Can you spot the howlers? Just close your eyes and throw a coconut - you'll hit at least one!

And so it goes, on and on and on...

Then at your initial link, lower down the page, there was:

"It was pointed out to me that the above does not take into account the possibility of robots and other forms of automation at the human level of intelligence. I think such robots will be developed, and then all of humanity will have the opportunity to join the idle rich. Not all people will take the opportunity to be idle any more than present rich or the past rich took it."

Ah, it all became clear. This site was not a parody after all: poor old Professor McCarthy is another of the retired cadre who has 'gone Emeritus'...

Neil, is this really the sort of material upon which you base your world views?

The words "mad" and "hatter' spring to mind, no doubt with further accusations of lying to follow. Which reminds me, I am very curious to know upon what point you tossed that accusation about me into the mix?

From what I can see calling you a buffoon and a scientific ignorant is not inaccurate in the slightest.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 May 2008 #permalink

So you did read those papers I posted up for you then Neil?

J

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 26 May 2008 #permalink

30,000 is a lot of scientists.

But how many papers challenging global warming theory have been published in total by these 30,000?

I suspect less than 30.

If you take a random sample of 50 signers, I bet you will find the whole bunch have not published even one paper challenging global warming between them.

In fact I would go as far to say that if you took a random sample of 50 signers you will probably find the whole bunch have not published even one paper relevant to global warming between them.

If they don't research in the field, why do I care what they think? If these people have the expertize to assess manmade global warming why did they need to circulate a "12-page review article" along with the petition? Don't these people know the basics already? Omission-filled is an oxymoron, but it aptly describes the 12-page "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research".

As a computer scientist myself (at least qualified as one, not working as one) I found the excuse for including over 200 computer scientists on that petition absolutely ridiculous. Nothing you learn in formal education in computer science makes you any better informated about climate models. Except maybe you are less immune to luddite arguments against it ("garbage in garbage out","you can make computers say anything", etc).

Neil,

You failed to link to a document, treaty or international decree that banned DDT. What you linked to said that the EPA ban in the United States caused other countries to ban DDT. The only example given was South Africa, which phased out DDT use in 1996, 24 years after the EPA ban in the US.

So, by "ban" you meant really an implied suggestion with a two decade gestation period?

I took my own challenge, decided to run through all signers with lastname beginning with U (as there are only 82 of them). Have got decent enough info on the first 6 so far.

The qualifications of the 6:
1) Physicist
2) PhD Transportation Engineering
3) BSc Electrical Engineering
4) Aeronautical Engineering
5) Professional Engineer (couldn't find degree qualification)
6) "a prominent veteran ufologist in the Los Angeles area"

I kid you not on the last one. The name is unusual and it matches down to the initial. The signers state on the Oregon Petition site is listed as "California", which matches up with the above description I found on some UFO site. I could find no details about the guy's degree but it could be anything BSc like.

The Physicist is the only one I would even remotely say would have a decent understanding of climate, and even then it doesn't look like he's published on it. Lots of papers on acoustics on google scholar.

"Boris says there was no banning of DDT & that it all just went out of use for inexplicable reasons."

What's so inexplicable about the failure of right wingers to fund, themselves, the use of a pesticide which they apparently believe is uniquely both economical and effective in order to save third world lives, which they value very little? Or their demands that the government, in which they profess no faith and whose activities they believe private organizations could do better, do it at their retroactive demand? Or that anyone who disagrees is Satan's Handmaiden?

"These processes (except for tar sands) are too expensive to compete with just letting it just flow out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, but the technologies were developed when it was thought oil would run out soon. The costs would be affordable. Taking these sources into account we probably have several hundred years supply of oil"

The good news: when gasoline costs $20 a gallon, we will have vast new sources of supply. The bad news: they will be vast new sources of supply of $20 a gallon gasoline.

"However, oil can be extracted from oil shale, from tar sands (as it is in Alberta, Canada) and synthesized from coal. These processes (except for tar sands) are too expensive to compete with just letting it just flow out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, but the technologies were developed when it was thought oil would run out soon. The costs would be affordable. Taking these sources into account we probably have several hundred years supply of oil"

'But the tar sands are unlikely to make a large impact on overall supply of liquid fuels because their supply is likely to be rate, rather than total resource limited. If the maximum rate were to grow to about 2 billion barrels a year this would approximately meet Canada's demand and could leave relatively little for export if Canada's production of conventional oil continues to decline. Achieving even this rate of production from tar sands is uncertain because of growing concerns about environmental impacts downstream and insufficient hydrogen and water.
...
although shale oils represent a huge potential resource they have a history of "always a bridesmaid and never a bride" because as prices for oil increase the prices for extracting shale oil have increased as well. This history represents the very real problems of generating a useful product from the resource. The main problems include the distance of the shale from both the water and labor needed to extract it, the large environmental impact compared to conventional oil and the relatively low EROI . In addition, with both shale and tar sands there is some disagreement whether the in situ should be charged as an energy opportunity cost, (in the same sense that bagasse could be in sugar cane ethanol). Ultimately, the question is, if conventional oil becomes very scarce whether a resource such as shale oil will be developed regardless of cost. '
-Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

Well one single attempt at producing alleged facts from Cthulhu though, bearing in mind the trend established here, there is no reason, without evidence, to suggest he is not making it up. In any case since the IPCC is chaired by an engineer he must already have publicly dismissed everything it says as not "remotely qualified".

The rest boils down to the same old lies & castigating the Oregonists because somebody "bets" they haven't done the work.

Bernie's attempt at refutation consists of pasting up large amounts of what Professor McCarthy says & saying he is a fool. Well I think we can agree that either Professor McCarthy is indeed a fool or Bernie, all those eco-Nazis supportive of him & indeed the members of the movement generally are both foolish & wholly dishonest.

I leave the question of which up to anybody who wants to check McCarthy's qualifications. In fact, of course, everything he says is correct, though the eco-Nazis cannot bear to admit it.

Taking the most prominent of Bernie's denouncings - that commodity prices didn't drop over the last 10 years - McCarthy is clearly right & Bernie is ignorant. Food costs less as a proportion of average income, even after eco-Nazi action to force up food prices by diverting it to bio-fuel (this is why an increasing amount of it is going to support meat animals); oil prices alone have risen but this is largely a matter of politics - including the Labour supported Iraq war & the fact that eco-Nazis prevent western countries, particularly America, opening new fields or building new refineries; prices of metals have not risen & in many cases have fallen EVEN in terms of inflated $s.

Bernie asks whether a Simon-Ehrlich bet would be successful now. Clearly Ehrlich & indeed everybody with any money in the eco-Nazi community knows the answer to that which is why they have refused to repeat the bet.

May explains the otherwise incomprehensible failure to use DDT after the eco-Nazis called for banning by saying that the world's governments became influenced by right wingers who don't care about human life - which is pretty much what I said. I trust there will be no further dispute about the appropriateness of the term eco-Nazi to describe them.

Jody asks me if I have read all the papers whose titles she gave.
No - have you? Since she is unable to precis what they allegedly say in her favour & she has already demonstrated that she does not possess the knowledge to be anything more than a cleaner in the organisation she has implied being a doctor in, I assume the answer is no.

-BJ produced an interesting link since anything Popper said is interesting. He clearly has either not read it, or having read it not understood it since Popper's definition of pseudo science:

"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice ......Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers--for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status"

Clearly applies to the warming theory that, since about 1980 we have experienced a continous & unprecedented global temperature rise, which is going to continue.

After Bernie's disgraceful attack on Professor McCarthy's inteligence & the failure of anybody but me to distance themsleves from it, it becomes yet again obvious that every eco-Nazi here & by extension every "environmentalist" anywhere who has not publicly disowned their associates, is not only extremely foolish but wholly & completely dishonest, willing to tell absolutely any lie & censor absolutely any fact to defend their murdering faith.

Nothing personal.

By Neil Craig (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Neil posts, in his usual calm, objective manner:

The environmentalist" movement is clearly proven to be whiolly corrupt, dishonest, racist & genocidal willing to tell absolutely any lie & censor or distrot absolutely any truth in its hysterical need to drag humanity back to the dark ages.

You forgot to mention that we eat babies and worship Satan.

Neil writes:

eco-Nazi action to force up food prices by diverting it to bio-fuel (this is why an increasing amount of it is going to support meat animals);

Wow, and the rest of us thought that was because there was rising demand for meat in the third world as incomes there rose. Should have known it was all a conspiracy.

At root, John McCarthy's optimism reduces to a zero cost for energy. You can catch up on this with early sci.environment posts. He is also a sore loser, having lost a bet with Eli and refusing to pay off (it was only a free diner, there being no such thing as a free lunch).

Anyhow, McCarthy is a lot more sensible and a lot less toxic than NaziNaziNeil.

"-BJ produced an interesting link since anything Popper said is interesting. He clearly has either not read it, or having read it not understood it since Popper's definition of pseudo science:"

Erm, Neil, you "clearly [have] not read it", because the Popper link is not mine.

You stumble over your own feet in your frantic efforts to prove your own ineptitude, don't you?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Clearly applies to the warming theory that, since about 1980 we have experienced a continous & unprecedented global temperature rise, which is going to continue.

Ah, I'm beginning to understand. What you mean is that reality has got it wrong, by falling in line with warmist predictions, instead of giving in to the demands of the 9% Growth Party.

Or, to paraphrase Colbert, reality has an eco-Nazi bias.

Neil.

Firstly i'm a guy. Secondly stop insulting me. Thirdly you should feel slightly embarrased about not being able to read, but i've done a bit for you. Here, from the third paper:

'Weak healthcare systems, insufficient
administrative, operational, and technical capacity,
and public reaction to spraying were the major factors contributing
to the demise of national eradication programs.13
However, it was the development of Anopheline resistance to
DDT that was primarily responsible for the dwindling political
and financial support for the global campaign.13'

'Resistance to DDT was widespread
in the early 1970s because of its intensive use in public health
and agriculture12 and emerged after about 11 years of application.
15 Although DDT has been used in limited quantities
for disease vector control during the past 3 decades, there
have been recent reports of resistance in malaria vectors from
African countries.'

Jody

By jodyaberdein (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

oil prices alone have risen but this is largely a matter of politics - including the Labour supported Iraq war

wow, that is a new one. the "eco nazis" were behind the war in iraq as well.

i am rather glad that Neil is unveiling this HUGE conspiracy for us!

even after eco-Nazi action to force up food prices by diverting it to bio-fuel (this is why an increasing amount of it is going to support meat animals)

you might want to google Brazil and biofuels. they started production in the 70s because of the OILCRISIS.

the argument that the current price increase i food is caused by biofuel production typically falls apart as soon as you look at the sources:
what most of the sources really say is, that a FUTURE INCREASE in biofuel production will increase food prices!

such an increase in biofuel production will happen, because they are COMPETETIVE at current oil prices! it is the MARKET, not the "eco nazis"!

So, Neil, you think that Erhlich would not have won if he'd made the bet with Simon ten years ago?

Consider:

Copper: May 98 ~US$0.75/pound. May 08 ~US$3.75 - 4.00/pound.

Chromium: May 98 ~US$6.50/kilo. May 08 ~US$11.50/kilo.

Molybdenum: May 98 ~US$4.00/pound. May08 ~US$34.00/pound.

Nickel: May 98 ~US$2.00/pound. May 08 ~US$12.50/pound (peak ~ US$24.00/pound mid 2007).

Tin: May 98 ~US$2.50/pound. May 08 ~US$12.50/pound.

Tungsten: May 98 ~US$60.00/ton. May 08 ~US$250/ton.

Gold: May 98 ~US$370.00/oz. May 08 ~US$900.00/oz.

Platinum: May 98 ~US$300.00/oz. May 08 ~US$2200.00/oz.

Silver: May 98 ~US$5.00/oz. May 08 ~US$18.00/oz.

Uranium: May 98 ~US$10.50/pound. May 08 ~US$60.00/pound (peak ~ US$135.00/pound mid 2007, and sure to rise again in the future...).

Zinc: May 98 ~US$0.50/pound. May 08 ~US$1.00/pound (peak ~ US$2.00/pound early 2007).

Oil: May 98 ~US$15.00/barrel. May 08 ~US$130.00/barrel.

Most of these come from graphs, so the units are disparate and the values may be out by a couple of percentage points, but I think that you should understand the thrust of this list.

I didn't include wheat, because I am currently on dial-up and I was growing more and more fed up, but perhaps you or someone else might dot this particular 'i'.

Now, how did Simon's bet go?

Hmmm???

Unfortunately the sources I used did not explain whether their prices were adjusted for inflation. However, if one assumes not, and if one considers the increase in the price of chromium (the commodity with apparently the smallest percentage increase), it would be necessary to have an average annual inflation rate of 6.5% in order to have even chromium not increase in adjusted terms.

At least, this is with the numbers as best as I can determine them.

In Australia at least, the new government and the Federal Reserve are having kittens because the inflation rate has recently risen to about half of this, or to a smidgin over half from a previous level around 1-2%. I think that we can safely say that inflation isn't going to magic away the various increases of the items in the above list...

To attempt to argue your way out of this one you would have to draw long straws indeed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Long straws?!

I meant long 'bows', but perhaps a straw would be appropriate, if it allows you to breathe a little longer in the rising water...

I wonder how much Erhlich would have won with this list of metals, excluding gold and platinum, if he'd bet in 1998?

It's almost worth the bother of working out.

So, remind me again - it's a 9% party, with the presumption of flat commodities values along for the ride?

Neil, Neil, Neil...

And do yourself a favour. Next time you're in London, stop by the hospital where Jody David Aberdein works and ask his colleagues about his medical credentials. Or better still, ask someone in London whom you know to pop over and inquire about Jody on your behalf.

Today.

It's obvious that you don't have the research skills to find out the truth of Jody's bona fides any other way - nor, for that matter, do you appear to have the depth of character to apologise for the slanders that you've thrown in Jody's direction.

And it's all being recorded here for posterity.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Oh, and Neil.

Nothing personal.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Eli at #173.

Your last sentence should have been preceded with a health warning.

I think that I might have broken a rib.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 May 2008 #permalink

Since our good friend Niel doesn't seem to get the point, let's try some reverse psychology.

The 9% growth party and in particular Niel Craig has made a horrible attack on the intelligence of Bernie and Dr. Lambert. Coupled with their mass murder of babies during Pol Pot's rise, they now continue to advocate forced slavery to mindlessly persue their goal of economic growth.

In fact, these captial-nazi, monetary stasi of the 9% growth party, have caused the majority of the world's slavery. The wikipedia article on slavery states that:

"Although there is no longer any state which legally recognizes, or which will enforce, a claim by a person to a right of property over another, the abolition of slavery does not mean that it ceased to exist. There are millions of people throughout the world -- mainly children -- in conditions of virtual slavery, as well as in various forms of servitude which are in many respects similar to slavery."

Which clearly applies to Niel Craig...this is a fact. His hysterical ramblings, and that of the captial-fascist-nazis, have caused, and will continue to cause, the deaths and slavery of millions.

But of course Niel the captial-nazi claims that he never killed and enslaved millions in the past...but of course why should we listen to someone who refuses to admit the truth?

Since our good friend Niel doesn't seem to get the point, let's try some reverse psychology.

The 9% growth party and in particular Niel Craig has made a horrible attack on the intelligence of Bernie and Dr. Lambert. Coupled with their mass murder of babies during Pol Pot's rise, they now continue to advocate forced slavery to mindlessly persue their goal of economic growth.

In fact, these captial-nazi, monetary stasi of the 9% growth party, have caused the majority of the world's slavery. The wikipedia article on slavery states that:

"Although there is no longer any state which legally recognizes, or which will enforce, a claim by a person to a right of property over another, the abolition of slavery does not mean that it ceased to exist. There are millions of people throughout the world -- mainly children -- in conditions of virtual slavery, as well as in various forms of servitude which are in many respects similar to slavery."

Which clearly applies to Niel Craig...this is a fact. His hysterical ramblings, and that of the captial-fascist-nazis, have caused, and will continue to cause, the deaths and slavery of millions.

But of course Niel the captial-nazi claims that he never killed and enslaved millions in the past...but of course why should we listen to someone who refuses to admit the truth?

Opps...apologies for the double post. Firefox is acting up.

Maybe it's time we laid off Neil Craig... I'm starting to feel sorry for him. He obviously isn't equipped to understand any of the arguments being made.

Re #166

Seven more done:
George Uhlig, Ph.D
1) Professor Chemistry, PhD (cannot find in what)
2) Economics Professor
3) Electrical Engineer
4) no trace
5) Medical doctor, MD
6) Chief mining engineer, PhD Metallurgical Engineering

None of which have published anything (findable) about climate. In fact in some cases it's just plain odd how they can be on the list. A medical doctor working in a clinic surely doesn't suffice as an expert on climate no matter how much they try to swing it.

So far I've found 11 and found only two credible backgrounds and even they don't seem to have published or worked on climate related, let alone global warming related work.

I saw someone doubting this above. For brevity I haven't put up the links identifying each individual, although each of the 12 given so far is in alphabetical order as they appear on the 'U' signers at this time on the Oregon petition website, so if you are really curious who they are..

Then again if anyone wants the links to one of the 11 I have identified so far I'll post it. I have it all saved. In many cases the info shows a direct match (eg personal bio page), in others it was less certain until I found out the state matches the state they are listed as under the petition and/or the initial matches. I find it very likely (>95% :) that I have identified 11/12 of them correctly. Just 70 more to go and then we'll see how many climate scientists with last names starting with 'U' on the Oregon Petition are credible experts to access manmade global warming, and how many have actually published papers about global warming.

A.Frank Alsobrook, died Feb.28,2004, Burlin E. Freeze, died November 16,2003.

Cthulhu: It might be interesting a contact some of these guys to find out whether they have actually signed any Oregan Petition...

Guthrie informed me that Neil Craig has been contributing to this site, since we have frequently encountered him on The Scotsman newspaper blogs concerning, particularly, climate change issues.

I must say I'm impressed by your patience with him. Neil constantly insults people, so those on this thread that may have felt insulted should not be offended.

Neil also misrepresents events and misquotes people. For example, in #147 above Neil states, "I recently had a letter in the Scotsman where I drew attention to my having had a letter published 2 years previously doubting that temperature is rising catastrophicly to which an eminent cleric had brought the full weight of his scientific expertise to bear to say should not have been published because there was no scientific dispute on the matter."

This is not true. The two letter from the "eminent cleric", to which Neil refers, make the following comments relevant to Neil's claim:

9th Nov 2006: "There is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a reality, to a degree never even remotely approached at any previous stage of history, and that the primary cause is human activity. These facts are no longer in serious doubt."

"The neo-conservative press and radio in the United States constantly confuse people there by presenting the arguments for and against as if there was some sort of balance to be struck. They ignore the fact that the vast majority of serious scientists now accept both the fact and the human causes of global warming, while those who claim otherwise seldom have any real authority and often are funded by groups with a vested interest in avoiding the implications of the reality."

23rd Nov 2006 "We must stop treating this as some kind of balanced discussion between two tenable opinions. The serious debate is over. We must change now, or the future is bleak.
(CANON) KENYON WRIGHT"
(ref. Scotsman website, Letters, 9th and 23rd Nov 2006)

That is but a small tedious example, but it illustrates how Neil misquotes and misrepresents events that cannot easily be checked. He is best ignored, though perhaps those interested in the psychology of self-delusion and denial may find his writings of interest.

Cthulhu

The list, the list. First an appropriate four days of Petition from Phil Hays,

Four smiling Dentists,
Three double E's,
Two Chiropractors
and a practicing Civil Engineer!

Then a somewhat longer analysis of the As

: : In the first 150, I found no meteorologists, atmospheric
: : scientists or climatologists. I did find:

Deans of Pharmacy (1) Industrial Engineering Technology (1), Arts & Sciences (1)
Public Health Ret. (1)
Chairs of Materials Science (1) Environmental Biology (1), Civil Eng. (1),
Orthopedics

Professors (13) Associate Prof. (3), Asst. Prof. (1) Inst.(1) Adjunct(1) of

1 Anesthesiology
1 Biology and Bioethics, publishes on the ethics of abortion
1 Biophysics
1 Cell Biology
2 Chemistry (theoretical Physical, ret.)
1 Civil Engineering (water resources)
3 EE (comp. arch., comp. sci., robotics, devices
1 Geology (paleo.)
1 Materials Science (metallurgist)
1 ME (forest fires)
1 Operations Research
1 Orthopedics
1 Periodontics
1 Physics (particle)
1 Psychology
1 Prof. of Science who was a co-founder of the Creation Research Society

: : Schools were U of Florida, Yale, U of Minnesota, U. of Il. at Champaign
: : Urbana, Virginia Commonwealth, Pacific Union, U of Missouri, West Point,
: Purdue, U of Colorado Boulder, Eastern Illinois University, PA College of
Technology, U of Washington, Montana State, Yeshiva, FDU, Western Mich., Northern Arizona, U
Del., UCSD, Penn State Hershey Medical Center

also

1 Aeronautics Engineer (AIAA Fellow)
2 Biologist (wildlife, botanist
2 Business Consultant (software
4 Chemist (Texaco, candy, polymer, laser ablation )
1 Chiropractor
2 Civil Engineer (concrete
3 Computer Engineer (software
1 Dentist
1 Editor (deputy Science,)
1 Electrical Engineer (data trans.
1 Environmental Engineer (wastewater, health&safety P&G) 2 Executives (VP Gen. Dyn.
Aeronautics, CTO Internet)
1 Extension Agent (horticulture
3 Medical scientists
1 Materials Scientist (coatings)
1 Mathematics educator
1 Osteopath
2 Physicist (medical)
2 Physician
1 Program Director (NCI/NIH)
2 Software consultant
1 MCI local services director

80 unidentified.

Anyone else want to play?

"Did Bigcitylib actually make the list?"

No.

Congratulations on a decent attempt Bernie. See - you really can do facts when you put your mind to it.

But.
The commodities prices you give are all in 1998 & 2008 dollars. The Simon-Ehrlich bet was, quite properly, in proportion of income spent on these commdities. Thus:

1) There has been world inflation - lets be generous & say it has only been 2.5% a year = 1.28 increase (compound interest)

2) The dollar has, under the glorious rule of Bush, fallen to about 60% of its value against other currencies.

3) The world average growth rate has been 5% (ours & that of most countries with strong "environmental" lobbies has been much less hence our present troubles) which totals to 1.63.

4) Lets knock off 4% for population growth.

In total this means that a 1998 dollar is equivalent to $3.34 of today's.

Which puts it in some perspective though I still grant that most of the metals you mentioned have either stayed the same or gone up slightly - on the other hand you have clearly been pretty selective since iron & aluminium are far & away the most used metals & you didn't mention them. Still a good try. Perhaps Mr Ehrlich wuill be persuaded to take the bet again though I doubt it.

ChrisC's argument would only make some sense if I had ever advocated slavery. Since, quite the opposite, I have advocated that everybody, even the world's poor, should have the chance to be wealthy while it is the eco-Nazis who are against them, or anybody else, getting a better life, his criticism only applies to himself & the "environmentalist" movement. In any case I produced evidence for what I said & he revels in the fact that he requires none.

Jody I apologise for insulting you by suggesting you might be female. You do offer us a very gender non-specific name & unfortunately your genetalia are not visible from on the net (don't even think it). I am sure there are very nice & you have nothing to worry about. I am sorry that it appears you really are a doctor at "the" London hospital (that would be the one opposite Buckingham Palace & sandwiched beteen Tower Bridge & the Dome) - this does not affect the fact that your previously proven ignorance on the subject of malaria vectors & DDT shows you shouldn't be.

I am pleased that Eli accepts that Professor McCarthy is highly intelligent (even if he cannot resist an unverified insult against him) & that therefore those who accuse him of idiocy are talking out of an inapporopriate orifice. I am very cheerful about admiting that he is smarter than I. Something which readers here will understand I do not do lightly. Eli's propensity to talk in the 3rd person must provide great entertainment down the pub.

Eli is right that Professor McCarthy's case depends on, not free which is silly hyperbole, but essentially unlimited power. Since that exists in the form of nuclear power & even moreso in space solar power his case is consequently obviously correct.

I note nobody who thinks the Oregonists have to be climate scientists to have an opinion has had anything to say against the IPCC which is not led by a climate scientist. In fact this is a nonsensical position because what scientists can recognise is whether what is being claimed is justified by the principles of science. In any case most of those puting forward the warming theory are not climate scientists but creators of computer models & rather bad ones at that. Indeed when Congress hired Professor Wegman to investigate the Hockey Stick warminng model he found that the modellers were not only not engaged in science but had a woeful ignorance of even statistical mathematics (which may explain why Mr Mann's model gave out the same warming prediction whatever figures were fed into it).

Nice to see you again Slioch - the letter was a direct reply to my & another letter about the warming scam - as you well know.

Fish in a barrel time:

The well named Vague denies that alleged warming trend has in any way varied from pre-1998 predictions. The warming has thus continued at its steep rise since 1998, all evidence that it has plateaued, let alone slightly reduced is ignored & of course, the medieval & late roman warming periods never happened.

Whereas Sod argues that bio-fuel are grown purely because they make money in a competitive market & do not need & do not get any subsidy whatsoever, which will come as welcome surprise to the American taxpayer http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070609/BIZ/7060…

The the fact that he/she/it happily goes on to predict yet more massive increases in food costs because of promotion of bio-fuel is a little disconcerting.

The point about these 2 is not that there are 2 people wholly ignorant of even the basic facts who feel the need to spout off but that NOBODY among the eco-Nazis, some of whom clearly know at least a little on the subject, feels any compunction to gently point out their lack of a relationship to reality. Further proof that there is no lie the movement will not tell & not truth they will not censor.

Neil, as well as being wrong and unwilling to learn, you are off topic.

Unless your comment is specifically about the Oregon petition, please take it to the Open Thread.

Moving off topic comments is too much of a pain for me to do, so I will just delete them.

Whereas Sod argues that bio-fuel are grown purely because they make money in a competitive market & do not need & do not get any subsidy whatsoever, which will come as welcome surprise to the American taxpayer http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070609/BIZ/7060…

i am sorry Neil, but you obviously did NOT understand what i said. please feel free to quote me, on saying that there are no subsidies on biofuels..

they do exist and they are a GOOD idea! second generation biofuels will be a major step out of our oil dependence. and they wouldn t exist without a first generation.

if you want to know, why certain first generation bio fuels get a lot of support, while being not very "ecologic", you will find that it isn t because of the "eco nazis"!

The the fact that he/she/it happily goes on to predict yet more massive increases in food costs because of promotion of bio-fuel is a little disconcerting.

and again, you somehow missed what i said. a FUTURE increase of biofuels for PURE ECONOMIC REASONS will have an effect on food production.
the "eco-nazis" have nothing to do with this! again, feel free to quote my "happiness"

ma argument was about 4 common misconceptions: (and you obviously believe in all of them):

1. the current increase in food prices was mainly caused by biofuel production.
whenever you venture beyond the distortion in a right wing magazin or blog, you will notice that there is little support for this claim.

2. biofuels are an invention of the "eco nazis"
completely false, as a simple look at the Brazil bio fuel history will show immediately.

3. "econ nazis" and subsidies will be the main driving force behind the increase in biofuels.
false as well, as biofuels are pretty competetive under current oil prices.


a single look at a single statement from a single environmental organisation will immediately dispel this myth.

sorry for the off topic comment above Tim.

so i ll save myself some time and Neil a correction of his ideas about the Ehrlich bet...

Neil stoops to untold depths when he writes: "Bernie asks whether a Simon-Ehrlich bet would be successful now. Clearly Ehrlich & indeed everybody with any money in the eco-Nazi community knows the answer to that which is why they have refused to repeat the bet".

This is taking intellectual discourse to a new low. Tim is correct; this has nothing to do with the now infamous (and appallingly unscientific) Oregon petition, and the grade school-level article that accompanied it that was typeset using the same font as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in a definitie attempt to create the impression that it was peer-reviewed.

Moreover, Neil, you ought to learn something: one cannot equate the health and vitality of our ecological life support systems on the basis of the prices of copper etc. Paul Ehrlich should have known this when he took the silly bet; it is even more apparent today. Moreover, Paul and Stephen Scheider actually proposed a bet to Simon in 1994 in which they predicted that every important indicator of ecological health - including biodiversity, the extent of desert cover, water and soil quality, the state of aquifers, and other measures of the global ecological commons that represent the natural economy - would be worse off in 2004 than in 1994 (ten years later). On each of 15 indicators they put forward 1,000 dollars. Simon refused on every one of them. Effectively, he did so because he knew he'd lose, bearing in mind that human activities continue to lead to a decline in the quality of ecological systems across the biosphere. This was a bet Ehrlich and Schneider would have been happy to lose, but they knew that things were and are going in the wrong direction. The point they were making is that technology can only offset ecological decline to a certain point, beyond which things are going to get worse. If we continue to simplify nature there will be no alternative, as humans do not have the technological means to replace many of the critical services that permit us to exist and persist. The only reason that we have not yet passed the apparent 'tipping point' is that ecological systems are resilient - at least to a point. However, we are certainly approaching 'crunch time', at least if we stay on our current course.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 May 2008 #permalink

Guess I can post a little more on specific cases where I just don't see how there is any defense of having the individuals on the list.

Ward Uggerud
BSc. in electrical engineering
"Ward Uggerud, Senior Vice President Ward Uggerud began his career with Otter Tail Power Company in 1971 as an Engineer in the Electrical Department"
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=8054335

Vincent H. Uhlenkott "a prominent veteran ufologist in the Los Angeles area"
http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/2006…
Surname matches, name matches, initial matches. State given on the petition is California, another match. So quite sure.
http://members.fortunecity.com/jhenry1/contact3.htm
Cannot find any degree qualifications, cannot see anything authored under this name on google scholar. Another BSc degree case perhaps?

Waheed Uddin,
PhD Transportation Engineering
Master of Science in Public Administration
http://home.olemiss.edu/~cvuddin/resume.html
No obvious climate related research

Alfred H. Uhalt Jr
BSc. in Aeronautical Engineering
MSc. in Public Administration
Former Astronaut
http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/candidates/english/uhalt_alfred.htm
At least one hit on google scholar but nothing to do with climate.

John Joseph Uhran
electrical engineering/computer science (no idea about degree)
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=4516599
Nothing obviously climate related

Vladimir M. Uhri, MD
Gastroenterology
http://www.healthworldweb.com/hww/search/get_doctor_background/467092

John L. Uhrie
PhD Metallurgical Engineering
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5976/is_200302/ai_n24146100
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/ttopics/online/archives/2002/080202.html
"John Uhrie, a geological engineering graduate, also holds a Michigan Tech PhD in Metallurgical Engineering. He helped form the Phelps Dodge Mining Company's Process Technology Center."

These people have achieved great things in their fields of expertize, but it looks very much like this expertize does not offer any insight into manmade global warming. Ie I see no reason to weight their opinion on manmade global warming any higher than any random member of the public.

Someone has written: "I note nobody who thinks the Oregonists have to be climate scientists to have an opinion has had anything to say against the IPCC which is not led by a climate scientist."

Well at least there is a half-admission there that the "oregonists" are not necessarily more qualified on the matter than anyone else. But I don't buy the comparison with the IPCC.

Focusing on the "head of the IPCC" one person is a diversionary tactic. Focusing on the scientists behind the report would be a better comparison.

Here's a list of 619 IPCC working group 1 authors, thanks to Eli:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli…

Most likely that list of 619 contains a far higher hit of significant contributors to climate science than the entire oregon petition signers list of 31,000.

The oregon petition is a numbers game, a good example of quantity over quality, a watered down list. We cannot get anything meaningful out of it other than propaganda unless it is refined. Perhaps someone should demand the Oregon Petition compilers release the "raw data" - the specific PhD information for each signer that they claim to have verified, ie make an "auditor" style request for information. That would go down quite ironically.

Perhaps someone should demand the Oregon Petition compilers release the "raw data" - the specific PhD information for each signer that they claim to have verified, ie make an "auditor" style request for information. That would go down quite ironically.

Their Mannian refusal to release their data and code is shocking, chilling, and anti-science. An outrage.

Oh, yes: I left a message for Joe Barton to call a hearing, and also for Wegman for him to do an analysis on the connections of the signatories.

Best,

D

The other objection to it is that it is based upon lies and distortions.

Unlike the IPCC, of course, which is led by admitted liar "Dr." James Hansen.

By Global Warming… (not verified) on 30 May 2008 #permalink

Global posts:

Unlike the IPCC, of course, which is led by admitted liar "Dr." James Hansen.

1. There's no need to put "Dr." in scare quotes. James Hansen really does have a doctorate.

2. James Hansen does not lead the IPCC.

3. James Hansen is not an "admitted liar."

How did you manage to get three mistakes in one sentence?

I think the 'global' poster is a parody character based on Dano's characterization of the typical comment in Murrican newspapers: GLOBUL WARMINS A SCAY-UM.

BPL got pwned - had the parody character included 'Hansen paid by Soros', it would have tipped you off.

Best,

D

Dano,

Sometimes parody is so realistic that it becomes indistinguishable from what it's parodying. Global's comment is like many real ones I've seen on various climate-related blogs.

I looked at the OISM website. They are still touting their substantial "research facility." It is an old steel barn on a far. I have one like it full of old tractors and trucks.

Of their distinguished eight member "faculty," one has been dead for six years and another for two.

And where did they get the dough to send mailings to probably hundreds of thousands of people?

Um. The don't disclose funders. Here's a hint, though. What corporation had history's largest profits last year?

By Phak Chequier (not verified) on 05 Jul 2008 #permalink