Wikipedia, Anti GW Vandalism and Global Extinction

[NinerSevenTango]

So now I'm a creationist, hehe.

And someone's assertion that "its neutrality is disputed" is all you need to discredit the research, all of the sources that are so carefully documented, and all of the verified names of all of the scientists who risked the consequences of signing their names to their own independent judgment of the evidence. And it's all you need to support the IPCC, who have not only been discredited, but twice now it has been documented how they cooked the data to come up with their alarmist conclusions. To me, that means "proven liars".

I guess I'm satisfied!

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

Silencing objectivity:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418

One man alone:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...090.xml&coll=1

--97T--

[fizzissist]

Roy Spencer is only one of many, not just a few, as he supposedly says in the article.

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango Thank you, Madclicker and Dynosor. Mr. Totally, There is a thread in this section with the word 'links' in the title. Fizzissist, myself, and others have posted links to the relevant material. If you read the rest of this Global Warming Discussion section you will find that every point I raised has been discussed at length. If you have any difficulty finding any of the information let me know and I will Google it for you. Here is a nice place to start ... http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm I'm glad you are willing to look at the evidence instead of letting the authorities do your thinking for you. --97T--

As I said previously about this piece of rubbish, I suspected that the 'petition' of '17,000 scientists' that it accompanied was worthless. I admit I was wrong - it wasn't as valuable as that!

Well, I'm not alone, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, page 16
Quote/
But it was soon discovered that the list contained few credentialed climate scientists. For example, the list was riddled with the names of numerous fictional characters.96 Likewise, after investigating a random sample of the small number of signers who claimed to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field, Scientific American estimated that approximately one percent of the petition signatories might actually have a Ph.D. in a field related to climate science.97
/quote

Apparently the fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. were among the signatories. Mmmm! Fictional signatories, fictional evidence showing global warming is not harmful. Perhaps there's a connection somewhere? I wonder who might be behind this? - I'll let you guess. Hint – It's not very hard to work out!

On the subject of independent thought, it rather seems that you are the one that has been letting the oil companies do the thinking for you!

By the way, the IPCC are not 'the Authorities', except in the field of Climate research.
It's the energy companies and oil companies in particular that fear the IPCC, because if the IPCC's recommendations are acted upon, the these energy companies are liable to lose a great deal of money.

Don't forget that the 'allegedly invalidated' IPCC and their research has been endorsed by the combined memberships of:

The National Academies of Science of the G8, Brazil, China and India, which means that some of the most eminent and well respected scientists in the world are mistaken. And that's ignoring the hardly insignificant groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists, they're most definitely big players especially regarding scientific excellence and integrity.
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not even remotely convinced by your arguments which appear to come directly or indirectly from 'The Big Book of Why Fossil fuels are not the cause of GW and other stories', and not based upon good science.

You really have been taken in by the oil companies' propaganda, haven't you!

[NinerSevenTango]

You didn't even read the intro page, did you? These ad hominem attacks were anticipated and answered.

I particularly like the reference to Scientific American as some kind of authority. They have been neither scientific nor American since about the mid 1980's. Bunch of socialist wimps, every article skewed towards the need for government to regulate everything, dreaming that someday scientists will pull the levers and government will make policy to enforce their wishes.

The IPCC has been caught lying about their data, and they keep the algorithms for the models that predict doom secret.

There might be some emotional appeal for goring the energy companies. But if you destroy them or just increase their cost of doing business, you will only hurt yourself -- unless you are a parasite who gets your money from taxpayers by the use of the government gun, and you are figuring that you will be able to maintain your own standard of living while everyone else can just do without.

All of the societies who support the need for a new world order -- sure, they need more tax dollars to study how bad the problem is, and more influence to gain power. What they don't realize is that history shows that once they help give governments the kind of power they seek, they will be dealt with in a most brutal fashion the first time they say something inconvenient to the rulers. They keep their place only so long as their pronouncements serve to broaden and consolidate the power of the government that pays them.

Big oil propaganda? I don't know, but all of the most damning evidence seems to come from independent sources.

I suppose 'good science' means someone speaking from authority, with credentials granted by those who approve the message and filter out dissent. Sorry, but logic and reason are not the exclusive domain of some man behind the curtain.

--97T--

[fizzissist]

97T,
....as usual, not one single shred of scientific evidence or discussion.

We're taken in by "big oil"....but this guy is swallowed by "big insurance", and "big science", as if that's better.

[NinerSevenTango]

"Scientific Consensus"

http://www.dfg.de/en/news/press_rele...e_2006_10.html