Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

Oh sorry...

I followed this thread for the first few pages then came back to it later without reading through everything inbetween properly, it would seem.

no worries... shows something that I've been thinking about with these threads actually... essentially bigfish is at a major advantage in terms of the casual observer because he get's to post his drivel in the OP, whereas it takes us a bit of time to fully refute whatever point he's making, with the refutation coming in drips through the thread, so most people will probably just check the op, scan over the thread quickly and may well miss the most relevant points and go away thinking bigfish was talking sense.:hmm:
 
so, to be clear, these 32,000 people haven't actually signed up in opposition to "the human-caused global warming hypothesis" as you claim in the OP.

They've signed up in opposition to the idea of it causing 'catastrophic heating of the earths atmosphere and disruption to the earths climate... in the foreseeable future'.

These are 2 very very different statements, and depend entirely on what is meant by 'catastrophic'.

There's also the cunning phrase 'there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause...'

The word "will" introduces a certainty to the phrase that goes beyond anything that any reasonable scientist would use when it comes to predicting 'catastrophic heating'.

basically IMO most of the IPCC, and probably even Al Gore himself would actually agree with the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of that petition because of the way it's worded, so that entire press release is a fraud IMO as it misrepresents what the scientists who have signed it have actually signed up to.

Nicely spotted. That's a return to the techniques of that pioneering disinformation scam, the Heidelburg appeal, which they actually managed to get some Nobel Laureates to sign by a variation of the same technique.
 
no worries... shows something that I've been thinking about with these threads actually... essentially bigfish is at a major advantage in terms of the casual observer because he get's to post his drivel in the OP, whereas it takes us a bit of time to fully refute whatever point he's making, with the refutation coming in drips through the thread, so most people will probably just check the op, scan over the thread quickly and may well miss the most relevant points and go away thinking bigfish was talking sense.:hmm:
It's not just bigfish though, that's the way the whole contrarian movement operates to a large extent. Get some superficially plausible 'doubts' into the public domain and it looks like a 50/50 open question to anyone who doesn't go digging for the details, checking sources etc.
 
or does aldebaran subscribe to a more creationist viewpoint?

What that comment has to do with my post is a riddle to me.
Could you be so kind to reserve commenting on the ideas of Christian lunatics for said Christian lunatics. Thank you.

My comment is based on scientific findings/reports I read and interviews with scientists I followed. It is not my field of study, but I found their arguments about their findings very convincing.
Do you argue against all these specialists who observe the event that currently a vast diversity of species (animal and plant life) on earth are extinct or under threat of rapid extinction in the near future, and at a rate that should be considered alarming all on its own?

part of the whole background to the climate change issues is the fact that the climate has changed dramatically fairly rapidly on many occasions in the past (due to a variety of factors), and these changes have often led to mas extinction events where vast swathes of the species on the planet have been wiped out.

Where do you get the idea (or information) that previous climate changes came about that rapidly as it is toady?
I never saw or heard such a claim made by serious specialists.

IMO it is arrogant in the extreme for us to think that we can cause such a dramatic change in the earths climate as we're looking at in such a short timescale without at the very least that change having a dramatic impact on the carrying capacity of the planet in terms of how many humans it can support

Correction: It is arrogant to the extreme to dismiss all observations by those who are seriously informed about and occupied with this field of study, just because you don't like what they find.
It is in addition arrogant to the extreme to think that humans are not the most dangerous predators and parasites of this planet and all that lives and moves on it.
It is also extremely arrogant to think that everything on this planet should tuurn around human life with disregard of all the rest. (exactly the type of reasoning that makes that humanity is digging its own grave, tearing everything else down with them).

salaam.
 
I was wondering how you knew that the other warming/cooling periods didn't happen this quickly. We were taught in school that the dinosauras were wiped out due to a meteor hit that spread ash into the sky and cut out the sunlight.

That is only one of the suggestions. There is to my knowledge no proof that dinousaurs "suddenly" became extinct or how they got extinct.

salaam.
 
It's kind of a bit foggy, in that there was an apparent decline in biodiversity prior to the KT event, and then at the time there were extinctions that seem to cluster closely together (perhaps as a result of an asteriod impact itself) and then changes that dribbled on for some time, that were possibly more to do with changes in temperature/sea-level etc.

There is a more or less global layer of iridium though, and some craters in the Deccan Traps that point to some kind of impact event.
 
What that comment weird has to do with my post is a riddle to me.
Could you be so kind to reserve commenting on the ideas of Christian lunatics for said Christian lunatics. Thank you.
Aldebaran... sorry, it was a cheap shot, but wasn't meant seriously, the point I was trying to make is that the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event around 65.5 million years ago which finally wiped out the last of the dinosaurs would have (by current theories) involved a climatic change that was more severe and faster than the one we're currently going through.

This change was due to an asteroid impact that would have in a matter of hours or days caused a plume of dust & debris into the upper atmopshere of sufficient magnitude to have blocked out at least 10-20% of the suns light for a period of several years to a decade (probably more in the immediate aftermath). There's also some (not conclusive) evidence that the meteor's impact may have unleashed a global firestorm that released vast quantities of CO2 into the atmophere, which coupled with vastly reduced rates of photosynthesis due to lower sunlight levels meant that CO2 levels increased dramatically very quickly so the immediate cooling caused by the immediate dust cloud impact was followed by very rapid warming.

I must admit I'm not entirely convinced by the second part of the arguement, but the first bit is based on pretty solid science, and involves siginficant climate change taking place in a matter of hours / days that led to an extinction event in which in the region of 40-50% of all species alive at the time became extinct.

The consequence of an impact would be a dust cloud which would block sunlight and inhibit photosynthesis for a few years, which would account for the extinction of plants and phytoplankton, and of organisms dependent on them (including predatory animals as well as herbivores). Small creatures whose food chains were based on detritus had a reasonable chance of survival. It is estimated that sulfuric acid aerosols were injected into the stratosphere, leading to a 10–20% reduction in sunlight reaching the earth's surface. It would have taken at least ten years for those aerosols to dissipate.[60][66] The consequences of reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere included a brief (hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation of an intensity similar to an oven set to broil, killing exposed organisms.[35] Global firestorms may have resulted from the heat pulse and the fall of incendiary fragments from the blast back to Earth. High O2 levels during the late Cretaceous would have supported intense combustion. The level of atmospheric O2 plummeted in the early Tertiary Period. If widespread fires occurred, they would have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere and caused a temporary greenhouse effect once the dust cloud settled, and this would have exterminated the most vulnerable organisms that survived the period immediately after the impact.[67]
[wiki]

Other than this event though you are essentially correct, although the further back in time we go, the lower the accuracy level in actually dating any changes, so it's entirely possible that a climatic change that's listed as taking tens of thousands of years actually took place much quicker than that, and the tens of thousands of years estimate is essentially just the mid point of the range of possibilities.

I think I'd slightly misinterpreted what you were saying when you wrote
but never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions.
I wrongly I think interpreted that as saying that never before had the claimte changed so dramatically and so fast as to cause mass extinctions at the levels we're now looking at. This would obviously be wrong as this graph of mass extinction events shows... but that wasn't actually what you were trying to say I think?

320px-Extinction_intensity.svg.png



Just to clarify, I'm not disputing that we're on the cusp of a human induced mass extinction event - though there are multiple causes of this on top of climate change (deforestation, land use changes, use of pesticides etc. etc.). The question really is what the extent of the climate change will be, and exactly what impact that will have on biodiversity / species extinctions etc.

Chances are that it'll not be the loss of any big species like lions or tigers that cause the real problems, it'll be some bug that's crucial in the breakdown of organic matter in the soil or something that's hyper sensitive to changes in climate that just dies off on mass, or some pest that finds it's natural climatic limitations suddenly removed by warmer winters & goes global to devastating effect to areas where it also probably has no natural predators to control it... basically something (or more likely many things) unexpected that catch the scientia. Something like the bug that's currently killing off all the bees* which if it succeeds in killing off all or most of the worlds bees, would have a major knock on effect on all the plant species that rely on the bees to polinate them, and all the creatures that eat those plant species, and all the other creatures that eat those creatures etc etc.
(no idea if this is down to climate changes or not, just an eg)



anyway, my main point was just that you need to be careful about the use of the word 'never' in this context, with a 2nd point that previous rapid changes in global climate have caused extinction level events of different magnitudes, reinforcing the likelihood that the changes we are currently initiating will also cause an extinction level event, so you may wish to make a minor modification in your argument to incorporate this historic experience to strengthen your case.

as for the rest of your comment, I'll leave it that you've slightly misunderstood my point in much the same way that I slightly misunderstood yours.;)
 
That is only one of the suggestions. There is to my knowledge no proof that dinousaurs "suddenly" became extinct or how they got extinct.

salaam.
ah, ok, so you are arguing against the meteor impact theory.

sorry to quote from wiki again, but it's actually pretty good on this subject as far as I can tell.

In 1980, a team of researchers consisting of Nobel prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez, his son geologist Walter Alvarez, and chemists Frank Asaro and Helen Michels discovered that sedimentary layers found all over the world at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary contain a concentration of iridium many times greater than normal (30 times and 130 times background in the two sections originally studied). Iridium is extremely rare in the earth's crust because it is a siderophile, and therefore most of it travelled with the iron as it sank into the earth's core during planetary differentiation. As iridium remains abundant in most asteroids and comets, the Alvarez team suggested that an asteroid struck the earth at the time of the K–T boundary.[63]

ok, so not absolute proof, but the only theory that really works to explain both this high iridium level and the mass extinction is a large scale meteor (or meteors plural) strike.
 
ah, ok, so you are arguing against the meteor impact theory.

Not necessarily, it is a good theory but I have some reservations, as always, and your next argument in fact underscores some of the reasons

Other than this event though you are essentially correct, although the further back in time we go, the lower the accuracy level in actually dating any changes

I'm not sure if that is correct, but actually it can have the reverse effect on the theory about the extinction of the dinousaurs too.
To my knowledge there is no consensus or even sufficient knowledge about how one species followed up the other(s), how those who existed simultaniously related to each other, what caused extinction of previous species and so on. To say they all of a sudden all disappeared because of X reason is therefore still a bit a shot in the dark. Maybe there are "younger" fossils waiting for discovery which then overthrow the whole idea of sudden distinction, maybe not.

Just to clarify, I'm not disputing that we're on the cusp of a human induced mass extinction event - though there are multiple causes of this on top of climate change (deforestation, land use changes, use of pesticides etc. etc.). The question really is what the extent of the climate change will be, and exactly what impact that will have on biodiversity / species extinctions etc.

Mass disturbance of biodiversity cannot lead to anything else but mass disruption on every level of the interdependent chain that life on earth actually is.
You can add to your prospect of microbes and bugs getting the upper hand where it is not wanted and can't be fought, the already existing resistance of insects and viruses to pesticides and drugs. That is then only one aspect of human made change we are already confronted with. I have no good words for GMF either, let alone genetic manipulated insects or other life forms from which the spread and long term effects on environment cannot be controlled let alone reversed.

salaam.
 
That is only one of the suggestions. There is to my knowledge no proof that dinousaurs "suddenly" became extinct or how they got extinct.

salaam.

I have clumsy wording - I meant that we were taught that a large meteorite hit the earth. The resulting ashing ash blocked the sun and the earth went in climate change. I'm sure that dinosaurs were not the only live forms to get affected.

You had originally posted that all climate changes took place over a long period and "never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions."

The comment not about when and if dinasours roamed the earth, it was that this has happened before.
 
You had originally posted that all climate changes took place over a long period and "never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions."

The comment not about when and if dinasours roamed the earth, it was that this has happened before.

Well yes, but I think when reading my posts in context of this discussion that obviously makes exclusion of events like "a meteor hitting the earth" (and which is only a theory).

salaam.
 
Well yes, but I think when reading my posts in context of this discussion that obviously makes exclusion of events like "a meteor hitting the earth" (and which is only a theory).

salaam.

Ah yes. Actually, but then it is all theory, isn't it? None of us were around back then, so it is all guess work.

You can believe that this is the fastest and I can believe that it is the second fastest. It's not going to change the course of events. The planet is going to continue to evolve. The species that can adapt will. The others will cease to exist. Pretty much as it is today.
 
There is a more or less global layer of iridium though, and some craters in the Deccan Traps that point to some kind of impact event.

There are some who argue that the KT extinction was a combination of asteroid/comet which went on to cause global magma plume activity (which is what is thought to be the mechanism where trappes like the Deccan Trappes are formed).

The planet is going to continue to evolve. The species that can adapt will. The others will cease to exist. Pretty much as it is today.

Yup.
 
... That's a return to the techniques of that pioneering disinformation scam, the Heidelburg appeal, which they actually managed to get some Nobel Laureates to sign by a variation of the same technique.

If anyone knows anything at all about "pioneering disinformation scams" it ought to be our very own professor Gunther of Stonehenge University -- utilizing as his primary disinformation source the laughable and totally discredited Wikipedia.

Lets have a look at what the Appeal statement actually says....

The Heidelberg Appeal (1992)

We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

Check

We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

Check

We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.

But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.

Check

We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.

Check

We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than an extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations.

Check

We intend to assert science's responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.

Check

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.

Check (it looks as though this clause was drawn up specifically with Bernie and the resident claven of eco-Jeremiah's here in mind.)

We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.

Check

The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.

Check (- with one proviso. I don't agree that our world is overpopulated. The Earth is so very big and human beings so very small in comparison that if the entire world population was gathered together in one place it would fit easily into the State of Delaware which is the 49th largest State in America and is roughly the same size as the county of Lincolnshire here in the UK.)


"Dr" Gunther is trying to convince us that some 4,000 plus scientists, including a large number of distinguished Nobel Laureates, were some how duped by such an unambiguous text. The Heidelberg Appeal was launched in 1992 and so ample time has passed for anyone who unwittingly signed it to have subsequently withdraw their support or alternatively to have denounce the Appeal as the sham that "Dr" Gunther claims it is. Perhaps "Dr" Gunther could provide the forum with an up to the minute account of all the signers who now agree with him and so have subsequently withdrawn their support?
 
Don't like wiki? Oh well.

Here's the original text of the Heidelburg Appeal from the Legacy Tobacco Documents library. You'll note the carefully chosen language, nothing strongly sceptical at all, but basically saying 'lets have sound science rather than a lot of hysterics', which of course is how they got a bunch of perfectly respectable Nobel laureates to sign it. The appeal was part of a whole range of industry funded PR efforts around the Rio Earth Summit, and hence in the memos below you'll see a fair bit of back-scratching between various industries that find various bits of science inconvenient. From the paper trail, it looks rather like the Heidelburg appeal itself was originally intended mostly to protect the interests of cancer-causing industries, but because of its fairly general wording, got adopted by the climate change contrarians and acted as the model for subsequent scams by the likes of Singer, Seitz et al, for example the Oregon petition and so on.

Here's an internal Phillip Morris memo about the Heidelburg appeal, noting the 'discreet involvement' of the asbestos and tobacco industries in funding the industry friendly front organisation in question, the International Centre for Scientific Ecology.

Here's another internal Philip Morris memo, talking about how to build on the Heidelburg appeal to mobilise a group of industry-friendly experts for other purposes.

Here's an internal memo from the Burston Marstellar PR firm, which is very interesting indeed. It's discussing how to build on this approach to create a capability consisting of front groups, a cadre of industry-friendly experts and so on, in order to address a wide variety of inconvenient science, ranging from evidence of their clients products causing cancer, to concerns over GMOs etc etc. It lays out the whole strategy that I've been describing in this and other threads.
 
So how many of the Nobel Laureates and regular scientist's who signed the Appeal have subsequently withdrawn their support for it, you didn't say?
 
Meanwhile business has got together to shape global policy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7464517.stm

"While recognising that there are still some uncertainties in the scientific and economic evidence available, these CEOs conclude that a responsible risk management approach to the issue requires political and business leaders to take action now," the document states.


So me are having trouble containing themselves:

There is no doubt that some of the companies in this coalition see economic opportunities arising from climate change solutions.
"We see enormous opportunities for the financial industry, beyond the challenge we face as global citizens," said Caio Koch-Weser, vice chairman of Deutsche Bank.

Opportunity knocks eh. Still when it comes to these issues, climate change and peak oil are one and the same? Not that bigfish believes in either but no matter, the agenda is happening, those with a different viewpoint will be ignored and will ahve to invent conspiracy theories as to why the world goes on the journey it is about to embark on, whcih wont be pretty.
 
Why would they? The language of the Heidelburg Appeal is perfectly reasonable. I'd support it myself. Scientific ecology rather than mystical mumbo-jumbo and hysterical romanticism, sure, I'm absolutely onside with that.

The uses to which it was subsequently put are what's questionable.

Specifically, by linking an appeal for 'sound science, not mysticism or hysterics' with sound but financially inconvenient science (such as that demonstrating the carcinogenic properties of their clients products, or subsequently the links between fossil fuels and climate change) the appeal was used to give the impression that the signatories thought the science these PR companies clients found inconvenient wasn't sound, but was rather mysticism and/or hysteria.

Given that the majority of the Nobel laureates who signed the Heidelburg appeal also signed the World Scientists Warning to Humanity on climate change, it's pretty obvious that this impression is misleading, and given the paper trail above, it's equally obvious that it's deliberately misleading.
 
Why would they? The language of the Heidelburg Appeal is perfectly reasonable. I'd support it myself. Scientific ecology rather than mystical mumbo-jumbo and hysterical romanticism, sure, I'm absolutely onside with that.

Part of the Appeal forewarns the authorities against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data. Can we take it that you agree with this part, too, and if you do, how do you square that with your stoic defense of pseudoscientific gibberish such as the lone hockey stick study, for example, which, as you know, has been exposed as such by several independent groups of researchers? Presumably, you're aware of the principle of falsification? In addition could you please enlighten us as to how it is possible for you to believe that carbon dioxide drives Earth's climate in the absence of a physical theory of the processes involved?
 
Well, you see that's the whole basis of the scam right there. Clearly the 50 or so Nobel laureates who signed both the Heidelburg Appeal and the World Scientists Warning to Humanity on climate change didn't think that the evidence concerning climate change was 'pseudo-scientific gibberish'.

It's like that hilarious occasion when bigfish excitedly started a thread entitled 'Fundamentalists 'threaten scientific progress''

Remember that embarassing debacle bigfish? Here's what you said:

<snip>

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Three cheers to Lord May for coming out and telling it like is with his parting shot. It looks like anthropologist and novelist Michael Crichton's observation that environmentalism constitutes a new form of religious fundamentalism particularly suited to urban atheists, is well founded. At any rate Crichton and Lord May appear to view things similarly on this particular score. "Enivronmentalism as Religion"

<snip>

... and here's the link to what Lord May actually said.

http://royalsociety.org/publication.asp?id=3864

What we have here is the outgoing President of the Royal Society expressing grave concern about climate change and a whole bunch of other issues bigfish thinks are conspiracies and, rather amusingly, taking the contrarians to task for being 'irrational'.

The newspaper headline the bigfish was quoting and a rash of stories in other papers based on the same press briefing, was used to give the totally erroneous impression that Lord May thought precisely the opposite, by focussing on some Heidelburg Appeal type remarks about the importance of basing policy on sound science rather than irrational beliefs and associating them with the environmental movement, rather than say fundies who don't believe in evolution (which is the type of stuff he's mostly talking about in the source text when he says 'irrational beliefs'). I and several other people searched in vain for any passage in the text in which Lord May takes 'green fundamentalists' to task.

Bigfish, as usual, didn't bother checking what his sources had actually said and made a complete dick of himself by crowing about the president of the Royal Society attacking 'green fundamentalism' as though that meant he didn't endorse e.g. the IPCC.

The 'junk science' con consists of taking anything any scientist might say about the importance of sound science over emotion/mysticism/new-age bollox/whatever as a basis for public policy, and misleadingly juxtaposing it in the media with some science the PR agency's client happens to find financially inconvenient. The scientist need not be and usually is not talking about the inconvenient science in question when he refers to 'pseudo-science' etc. Very frequently they quite demonstrably think that the particular piece of science that's being PR-smeared is perfectly sound, as in the examples given above.
 
Well, you see that's the whole basis of the scam right there. Clearly the 50 or so Nobel laureates who signed both the Heidelburg Appeal and the World Scientists Warning to Humanity on climate change didn't think that the evidence concerning climate change was 'pseudo-scientific gibberish'. ...

But the World Scientists Warning to Humanity document does not issue a warning on "climate change" as you are deceitfully insisting above. They don't even mention "climate change" -- a recent Orwellian contraction of the term "global warming" which you and your accomplices were forced to abandon when the globe stopped warming about 10 years ago due to natural climate variability.

I can't help but notice that you have ducked out of providing an account of your stoic support for the now comprehensively discredited hockey stick study. Nor have you enlightened us on how it is possible for you to believe that carbon dioxide drives Earth's climate in the absence of a physical theory of the processes involved?

Can you please answer the questions?
 
But the World Scientists Warning to Humanity document does not issue a warning on "climate change"
Yes it does:
World Scientists Warning to Humanity said:
Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great.

the globe stopped warming about 10 years ago
We have been through this several times before, for example here.

the now comprehensively discredited hockey stick study.
We have been through this several times before, for example here.

Nor have you enlightened us on how it is possible for you to believe that carbon dioxide drives Earth's climate
We have been through this several times before, for example here.
 
the laughable and totally discredited Wikipedia.
I love the way CT nuts always say this about wikipedia now that it requires information to be properly sourced. Of course if any particular quote from it was incorrect, which is not impossible, then the actual error in the specific information should be pointed out, and corrected on wiki. Instead, people with no actual argument can only try to poison the well.

"Dr" Gunther
You appear to be claiming 1) that Bernie said he was a Dr, and 2) that he isn't. Provide evidence for both those claims or withdraw them.
 
Yes it does:

Okay, yes, you are right, the document does briefly mention "global warming" someway down the list, coming at at number 10 after:

1. Stratospheric ozone depletion

2. Air pollution near ground level

3. Acid precipitation

4. depletable ground water supplies

5. Destructive pressure on the oceans

6. Loss of soil productivity

7. Land abandonment

8. Tropical rain forests

9. The irreversible loss of species


Leaving aside the legitimacy or otherwise of all the all the claims listed in the document before global warming gets a mention, "Dr" Gunther's assertion was that 50 or so Nobel laureates signed both the Heidelburg Appeal and the World Scientists Warning to Humanity ON CLIMATE CHANGE, which is a crude and rather obvious lie. The 50 odd Nobel laureates signed no such document. In fact, the document couches what it has to say about carbon dioxide driven global warming in language so ambiguous that no self-respecting Nobel Laureate would consider it the primary concern of the petition, unlike "Dr" Gunther who seems to believe otherwise.
 
You'll notice also, that while I'm providing primary references to internal tobacco company and tobacco/asbestos PR agency documents demonstrating that the Heidelburg Appeal was a scam, intended to con legitimate scientists into providing material to help PR agencies confuse the public about the scientific consensus that their clients products caused cancer (and was subsequently used in the same way by industries who would like to deny that their activities contribute to climate change) bigfish is obsessing about a diagram that looks like a little bit like a hockey stick. Not the actual research or its conclusions, but about the 'hockey stick' diagram. Wonder why he's so upset about a graph?
 
The UN climate change numbers hoax

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
...
The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge. An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that "hundreds of IPCC scientists" are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years".

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the "Greenhouse gas forcing ." statement above, Professor McKitrick explained "A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed."

Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as "Typical IPCC doubletalk" asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model".

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers' comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553
 
International Climate Science Coalition. said:
of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest

A pretty serious allegation.

One would expect at least a description of the kind of vested interest alleged :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom