Alarmists - take you best shot

Here we go again - the known fraudulent "oregon petition"

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/

 

No - that survey was not of scientists, but of people with some sort of scientific qualification (ie - school teachers, engineers etc).

And 32000 only represents 0.3% of all Americans who would fit that qualification.

Do you understand that you have been conned?

 

Sorry i cant find the list now, did find it once.

And guess what the credentials and make up of that list is no different to your survey/consensus madam.

What is the difference they all have masters and phds in a ross section of sciences.

 

HHHMMM i've been conned or you've been conned!

 

I thought the knowledge that there had been tens of thousands of research articles published on climate science was widespread as was the knowledge of the difference between a representative sample and a census of a population

 

Can't find it?!?!

That is convenient isn't it.

Let me help:
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

They do not all have masters and phds.

 

And of course - even though only about 0.3% of the people "qualified" to sign it actually (supposedly) signed it - we don't even know how many of those were real signatures:

Soon after the mailing it was posted on the internet where virtually anyone could sign it claiming whatever "credentials" they wished.
...
To no one's surprise, within weeks of it's release the Petition had accumulated numerous bogus signatures, including "Dr. Red Wine", characters from the TV show MASH, the author John Grisham, and a "Dr." Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) whom were are told, has a PhD in microbiology. Arthur Robinson admits that the OISM has been unable to keep pranksters from signing the petition.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/global-warming-skeptics.aspx/oism-petition-overview

You have been conned

 

Thanks bugs, i did lose that site and couldn't find it.

The cross section of scientists is similar to your survey consensus.

 

As for those documents you place your faith in.

How anyone can believe in them when they omit the effects of,

1.THE SUN,
can you believe that! that big yellow thing in the sky, they forgot to take it into consideration in their computer modelling.

2. WATER VAPOUR - responsible for 95% of global warming

3. CLOUDS - and their effects the second major cause of global warming.

4. There's more below in quote.

AAHHHH computer modelling, Sh!t IN Sh!t OUT.

And what about their predictions they dont let the public know that their predictions are way off.

By the way bugs now that we are in a state of cooling not warming WHAT HAVE THEY TO SAY ABOUT THAT, i think since 1998 the Earth has been cooling.

I'll give you a little tip - its called climate change and has always been here on Earth

And no human tax will ever change it.

 

You mean the cross section of Americans with bachelor degrees in science or related fields. Not scientists.

And this cross section of Americans with bachelor degrees in science or related fields only amounts to 0.3% of similarly qualified Americans.

That is a pretty poor turnout for a petition. Especially when many of the names are known to be fake

 

errr...no. they didn't

Water vapour is responsible for between 36% to 72% of the greenhouse effect. It is the most significant green house gas. No one is denying this

Clouds are water vapour

No - the GCM models have been quite accurate:

You think wrong. The earth is not cooling. It is warming. This is beyond doubt

The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46°C above the long-term average (1961-1990) of 14.0°C. Nine of these years were among the ten warmest on record. The warmest year on record was 2010, closely followed by 2005, with a mean temperature estimated at 0.53°C above the long-term average. It was the warmest decade ever recorded for global land surface, sea surface and for every continent.

The global temperature increase rate has been “remarkable” during the previous four decades, according to the preliminary summary. The global temperature has increased since 1971 at an average estimated rate of 0.166°C per decade compared to the average rate of 0.06 °C per decade computed over the full period 1881-2010.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html

ANd in recent decades, anthropogenic emissions have been responsible for significant change over and above natural forcings

Reducing emissions will reduce the impact. Emissions trading is one proven mechanism to reduce industrial emissions.

 

Hey bugs

Should we be trembling at the knees because the temperature rose 0.53 degrees celclius above average?

GET REAL Woman!

See the whole interview here
http://westernfrontonline.net/news/14141-qaa-western-professor-doubts-global-warming

 

Do you understand what is meant by a average global temperature?
Do you know what an "average" is ?

The arctic ice cap is finding 0.53 deg quite significant


So are the world's glaciers

 

...........................................

 

Here it is again bugs,

As for those documents you place your faith in.

How anyone can believe in them when they omit the effects of,

1.THE SUN,
can you believe that! that big yellow thing in the sky, they forgot to take it into consideration in their computer modelling.

2. WATER VAPOUR - responsible for 95% of global warming

3. CLOUDS - and their effects the second major cause of global warming.

4. There's more below in quote.

AAHHHH computer modelling, Sh!t IN Sh!t OUT.

And what about their predictions they dont let the public know that their predictions are way off.

By the way bugs now that we are in a state of cooling not warming WHAT HAVE THEY TO SAY ABOUT THAT, i think since 1998 the Earth has been cooling.

I'll give you a little tip - its called climate change and has always been here on Earth

And no human tax will ever change it.

 

.........................................

YOUR FAMOUS CONSENSUS BUGS!

Only 5% of of the scientists that participated in the survey were climate scientists

 

Oh! Dear! And you think that we are relying on only ONE sample survey to determine consensus?

Sorry but if you are applying the same confusion to this as you do to your use of the quote function on this board I can see where you might have come to that conclusion
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

And please stop quoting from either Marc Morano or the Oregon Petition as BOTH of those have been discredited beyond belief

 

Oh dear.

After being shown that you were sucked in by the OISM Petition - which 99.7% of all people with some sort of scientific or related qualification in the USA DID NOT sign - you go straight out again and fall for another con!!! This time cobbled together by some nutjob US politicians spin doctor!


http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/new-improved-climate-skeptic-list-fraud/


Why don't you look at this list of "More than 1,000 dissenting scientists" and see what research any of them have ever published on the subject.

Then get back to us.

 

Let's go throgh this one at a time shall we?

On what are you basing this nonsense?

Anything?

Anything at all?

Here is a simple description for you of how a general circulation model works:
Atmospheric GCMs (AGCMs) model the atmosphere (and typically contain a land-surface model as well) and impose sea surface temperatures (SSTs). A large amount of information including model documentation is available from AMIP. They may include atmospheric chemistry.

AGCMs consist of a dynamical core which integrates the equations of fluid motion, typically for:
-surface pressure
-horizontal components of velocity in layers
-temperature and water vapor in layers
-There is generally a radiation code, split into solar/short wave and terrestrial/infra-red/long wave

Parametrizations are used to include the effects of various processes. All modern AGCMs include parameterizations for:
-convection
-land surface processes, albedo and hydrology
-cloud cover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model

If these models are "not taking the sun into consideration" - where on earth is the energy input for the various parameters coming from?

Do you think at all before you write?

 

Sorry but who omitted what?

Just because Jonesy makes the claim does not mean it is true (in fact the opposite is more likely)

Try fact checking for yourself that way you find the REAL truth and not be sucked into lies

 

YES you read correctly,

The IPCC models base all the heating on the concentration of CO2 and have not taken the SUN into consideration.

Now how can anyone believe these computer models if they have not taken the effects of the sun into consideration.

Flawed data ladies.

Like i keep saying about computer models sh!t in.......sh!t out

So do yourselves a favour and snap out of this hypnotism the IPCC computer forecasts have placed you under.

 

Thats the one your quoting right.

So you believe in a consensus of 3000 odd scientists which were surveyed on two questions and then they gave their personal opinion.

Where is their research or to form scienstific facts these days we just take a vote on a survey.

And BTW only 5% of those 3000 odd scientists were supposed climate change experts.

How is this any different to that petition were 30000 scientists from a variety of backgrounds gave their opinion on climate change.

You alarmists make me laugh some times. when all you can present is no better than what i can present and then you make your findings some how superior.

I ask you what is the diffence between your consensus and my petition, i woul say zip.

 

My dear you should wake from your slumber because one day you will wake and find that your house has dropped acouple of hundred thousand dollars in value because the Gillard/Brown Government have slapped a green climate freindly sticker on it.

Dont laugh thats going to happen too under Gillard and Brown.

Ofcourse it doesn't affect those c(*)(*)ts.

The world is their oyster when it comes to climate change and the taxes they can impose.

Jonesy you mean my next door neighbours cat? never listen to it.

 

Is this what you alarmists want to turn Australia into?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-taxes-add-burden-struggling-families.html

You know how this works right, energy bills are the first things to be in arrears then its the mortgage.

And then your on the street.

 

Bwa hahahaha!

And the link is to.................Friends of Science AKA FOS AKA Full of (*)(*)(*)(*)

Not only is it dripping with so much psuedoscience that a grade schooler could spot it but it has a LOOOONG history as a Friend of $$$ in other words it is one of Big oil's premier astroturf sites

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

With (*)(*)(*)(*) like FOS as a prime example of "fool the idiots" why on Earth would you EVER believe a denialist website?

BTW your link does not even support your contention