Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
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.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Lambert, it's the Oregan [sic] petition.
Should I join the list? I'm still deciding what to call myself. Perhaps "Dr. Fred Mbogo"?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 20, 2008 11:15 AM
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
Posted by: Dano | May 20, 2008 11:24 AM
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 Ünterhosen
Posted by: Dood | May 20, 2008 11:24 AM
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
Posted by: Dano | May 20, 2008 11:29 AM
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.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 12:08 PM
You do know that the IPCC has a website, Betula?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | May 20, 2008 12:11 PM
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
Posted by: RP | May 20, 2008 12:14 PM
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.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 20, 2008 12:34 PM
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.
Posted by: bigcitylib | May 20, 2008 12:52 PM
The other objection to it is that it is based upon lies and distortions.
Posted by: guthrie | May 20, 2008 1:08 PM
"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.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 1:21 PM
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...
Posted by: sod | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM
http://www.theclimatescam.com/2008/03/29/who-is-ipcc-anyway/#comments
Is the stupid troll's google bar broken?
It turns out that about half of them are climate scientists.
Are there any working climate scientists on Oregon petition?
Posted by: elspi | May 20, 2008 2:34 PM
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
Posted by: Dano | May 20, 2008 3:43 PM
"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.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 4:00 PM
Google for what you want Google's help finding. Example from first few hits:
http://www.desmogblog.com/IPCC2007InfoCentre/ContactinfoforCanadianIPCCAuthors
Not enough for you?
Google for more.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 20, 2008 4:06 PM
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
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
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 20, 2008 4:09 PM
Hank: Just use HTML, which lets you turn that mess into a functioning link.
Posted by: Brian D | May 20, 2008 4:25 PM
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.
Posted by: saurabh | May 20, 2008 4:26 PM
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-share-the-bl.html
Now there's a straight forward, unbiased, non-political thinker for you.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 4:40 PM
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.
Posted by: elspi | May 20, 2008 5:09 PM
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.
Posted by: sod | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick | May 20, 2008 6:55 PM
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.
Posted by: pough | May 20, 2008 7:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 7:52 PM
"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.
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 7:56 PM
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?
Posted by: Betula | May 20, 2008 8:03 PM
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.
Posted by: James | May 20, 2008 8:19 PM
sorry, that should have been 357 architects and engineers.
Posted by: James | May 20, 2008 8:23 PM
Dr. Hugh Manatee!
Posted by: z | May 20, 2008 8:25 PM
"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.
Posted by: z | May 20, 2008 8:28 PM
"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."
Posted by: z | May 20, 2008 8:37 PM
And as of 2001, the Flat Earth Society had 3,000 members...
Posted by: dhogaza | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM
In related news, the "Heartland 500" list is now on Scopical (Australia) and The Capital Times (Wisconsin), though the TCT story is garbled.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 20, 2008 9:04 PM
"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.)
Posted by: elspi | May 20, 2008 10:04 PM
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/openletterto_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.
Posted by: cohenite | May 20, 2008 10:38 PM
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?
Posted by: dhogaza | May 21, 2008 1:25 AM
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).
Posted by: Roger Jones | May 21, 2008 3:03 AM
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.
Posted by: cohenite | May 21, 2008 4:20 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | May 21, 2008 5:10 AM
I think I've found a dead 'un...Harner Selvidge, can you please advise us of your whereabouts?
Posted by: Nick | May 21, 2008 5:44 AM
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.
Posted by: Neil Craig | May 21, 2008 6:25 AM
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?
Posted by: guthrie | May 21, 2008 7:00 AM
And that wasn't me as the anonymous who posted on your blog post. I always use my name.
Posted by: guthrie | May 21, 2008 7:01 AM
I got as far as "eco-fascists"... then yawned, scratched my butt, rolled over and went back to sleep.
Posted by: WotWot | May 21, 2008 7:10 AM
"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.
Posted by: Betula | May 21, 2008 7:36 AM
elspi.
However, "Butula" sounds very kinky......probably extreme far left, yet still doesn't help us with gender identification.
Posted by: Betula | May 21, 2008 8:17 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | May 21, 2008 8:34 AM
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.
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 21, 2008 10:32 AM
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.
Posted by: Betula | May 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Ian......
Elspi brought up "kinky conservative", in my response I mistyped "Butula" and made a joke.......get a life.
Posted by: Betula | May 21, 2008 10:49 AM
It's the same old, same old.
Still has dead people. Still has people who may not exist. Still has virtually no scientists that study or publish on the climate.
YAWN
Posted by: thingsbreak | May 21, 2008 10:55 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 21, 2008 1:39 PM
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"?
Posted by: Neil Craig | May 21, 2008 2:50 PM
Why should we believe anything Neil Craig says about the "child murdering eoc-fascist movement" until he stops beating his wife?
Posted by: dhogaza | May 21, 2008 3:24 PM
I second Dano's motion!
ALL M.D.s need to sign!
-- M.D.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM
I have to agree with dhogaza here. Abusing your wife is a horrible thing to do, and until he seeks treatment, we should not be enabling Neil in any way.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | May 21, 2008 6:03 PM
butula... a vampire who specializes in attacking from the low and behind?
Posted by: z | May 21, 2008 9:35 PM
child murdering eco-fascist movement
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Somebody wake me when something interesting happens.
Posted by: WotWot | May 21, 2008 9:54 PM
Apparently, according to the petition, someone's given name was "Professor".
And there's more!
James Hansen's evil twin is spotted. Or maybe the Hansen we're seeing in the media is the evil twin:
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 12:26 AM
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.
Posted by: John Quiggin | May 22, 2008 1:23 AM
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.)
Posted by: Tim Lambert | May 22, 2008 1:53 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | May 22, 2008 5:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Neil Craig | May 22, 2008 6:36 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | May 22, 2008 6:57 AM
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?
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 7:04 AM
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?
Posted by: sod | May 22, 2008 7:35 AM
sod, I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the "James Hansen predicted global cooling" canard again. Really, what happened to it?
In other news, the "Heartland 500" list has resulted in 5 more angry scientists, from Wisconsin.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 7:41 AM
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
Posted by: Neil Craig | May 22, 2008 8:51 AM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | May 22, 2008 9:20 AM
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...
Posted by: Nick | May 22, 2008 9:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Neil Craig | May 22, 2008 10:44 AM
Neil:
No.
I smell another Godwin quinella coming...
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 10:50 AM
Godwin quinella jackpot! Woohoo!
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 10:51 AM
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?
Posted by: neil craig | May 22, 2008 11:04 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | May 22, 2008 11:17 AM
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.
Posted by: neil Craig | May 22, 2008 11:42 AM
Neil:
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.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2008 12:46 PM
FUD analysis of Neil Craig at: May 22, 2008 11:42 AM [kill][hide comment] (after which I'll be activating [kill]:
Words in comment: 97
FUD phrases:
% 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