Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Maybe the deniers accusing scientists of fraud, lies and corrupt data should look at the misinformation coming from the deniers. Any one who does not see the misinformation in this clip of Joe Bastardi needs to educate themselves on the basics of climate science.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dYzXbGnWg8"]On Fox, Joe Bastardi Promotes Global Cooling Myths - YouTube[/ame]

And then there's WUWT. But that's for a future post.

 

I was listening to Old Time Radio on the internet last night and they ran an ad. A scientist, a scientist, mind you, was telling me the health benefits of smoking Chesterfields. Almost made me want to go buy a pack of cigarettes.

The global warming hysterics has lied, dissembled, mispoke, and committed fraud so often it's not worth pursuing. My personal favorite is the "scientists" who refuse to release their data or research methods for scrutiny as is normal for the scientific method.

Oh, it's not that I don't believe. In fact, I am so confident that I know for a fact the human life on earth ended forty years ago as "scientists" predicted.

 

Was his name Fred Singer?

This thread is about the deceit of the deniers. If you want to claim AGW scientists are committing fraud, go join in any one of several other threads that are falsely claiming that fraud has been committed.

 

ya that Fred Singer who denied cigarettes caused cancer and now denies AGW...freddies backing goes to the highest bidder...

 

this guy claims to be an expert?...I don't think I know anything significant and even I can knock holes in his evidence...

 

Could be Fred Singer.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer#Tobacco_Industry_Contractor

Or maybe it was Richard Lindzen.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#On_Tobacco

Either way, I think Patrick is talking to the wrong "scientists".

 

Show me what he lied about

 

Afraid to admit is the GW scientists doing the lying and deceiving.

 

No citations = made up assertion = typical denier behavior.

 

Why do not we start with this lie:
"...when you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 parts per million a year. We contribute 3% of that, which means the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million. Do you realize how small that is of a trace gas that is necessary for life on the planet?"

Do you see the lie? (Hint: what else besides humans are contributing to the 1.5ppm increase) If not perhaps you need to get a better understanding of the science.

 

Nice try but look at September temps used to claim hottest October or the Himalaya lie

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

Where does your link say what Bastardi claimed:

"...when you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 parts per million a year. We contribute 3% of that, which means the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million. Do you realize how small that is of a trace gas that is necessary for life on the planet?"

 

Show where he is wrong

You asked this and I showed it

 

CO2 is increasing at 1.5ppm per year. Humans are responsible almost 100% of the increase; not 3% as Bastardi states.

 

I showed proof he was right now you are buying into the Global warming lie

 

NO! Bastardi talks about % of increasing CO2. SkepticalScience states amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. If you do not understand the difference, I cannot help you learn.

 

Where is your proof he is wrong. Your opinion means nothing

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

 

It is basic math man - either you can't do that or are choosing not to.

Oh - and that quote is taking about the rate of increase. Here is the title of the citation you link to;

<b>AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASE
RETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS</b>

Claiming this is proof refuting that you and Joe Bastardi stink at math is, ridiculous.

 

I guess you don't read the NOAA site is old but was about increase and was seen as natural not caused by man.

The earth gets rid of it naturally

 

NO. Read it again:
"However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere." temporary fluctuation Not the 1.5ppm increase.

And from your link

Increase of 100ppm for 200 years (1800 to 2000); that's 2ppm / year. A lot more than Bastardi's claim of .045ppm.

 

Basic math indeed -- In a recent post here, I went through some very simple calculations *in painstaking detail* that show how human CO2 emissions *must* be responsible for the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Linky here: http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/200766-continues-unravel-4.html#post4312783

The calculations really are embarrassingly simple -- much closer to bean-counting than rocket science.

It's rather shocking to see how many folks in the denier community are so completely "lost at sea" when confronted with a problem that requires junior-high math/science skills to solve.

 

You seem to ignore the natural part. It is not man

 

No citation = you are just making crap up.

 

So you didn't read the post