Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, February 26, 2010

Climate change sceptics claim that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the data around global warming in a scandal known as 'climategate'.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

ATaxpayer

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Glad to see people are finally waking .

"just one in five people believe climate change is man-made"

at one time just 1 in 5 people believed the earth was round.

at one time just 1 in 5 people believed the pharoah wasn't a god.

at one time just 1 in 5 people beleived we could go the speed of sound.

i don't care what people believe

i want the facts

and because a few scientists out of thousands were lying doesn't make me think all the scientists were lying nor does it tell me all the collected data is wrong.

the logic in this debate is non existent.

Where is Al Gore anyway, he seems to be in hiding scared shitless he will have to answer some very very Inconvenient Questions...


Klifferd do you still believe Santa the Easter Bunny and The Goreacle you are now 1 out of 5 people, better fact check yourself or get on some medication

ATaxCheat,

What a RETARDED TITLE!!!!

This is a wingnut party in the UK with EXACTLY ZERO (0) MP's. These toerags propose some bullshit publicity stunt and a braindead troll like you posts a title like that. These fools have fewer followers than the Barking Mad Loonies.

This is why you Rtard skidmarks will never be taken seriously on DR or anywhere else in life.

Go to fork yourself and the rest of your 9-11 truther, holocaust-denier, GW-denier, and birther butt-buddies.

www.climatechangefraud.com

Kiifferd why is the GODFATHER in hiding could it be he is full of crap and he knows it...

"The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.

We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses."

and because a few scientists out of thousands were lying doesn't make me think all the scientists were lying nor does it tell me all the collected data is wrong.

Building a scientific theory is kinda like building a house. Everything is predicated upon the foundation. If honest scientists were basing their work, even in small part, on the trust of the quality and accuracy of the work of their peers at East Anglia.....

#5 | Posted by axe

AXE pull your head out of your ASS, you and your buddy klifferd are now 1 out of 5 people who still believe in man made Global warming...

LOL LOL what a Dope...

AXE Looks like you and your buddy never heard of Solar Cycles, cooling and warming have both taken place for Billions of years even BEFORE SUV'S or Republicans...

Good luck with that tell Santa I said hello stupid ass...

Kliff,

Let me phrase it another way:

A talented lawyer could be given factually incorrect information and still put together a great argument. However, at the end of the day his argument is ultimately bad because it was falsely premised.

Over time the science will sort itself out.

However, when it comes to policy, we need to back the fuck off, slow down and let the science work itself out before emasculating our economy and putting 10s to 100s of millions more people into poverty because we want to be 'green' on a global scale.

Bottem line what would AL Gore say to defend his invention and no not the internet ha ha, I mean "Global Warming" which has now morped into "Climate Change"...

Very strange Big AL would just sit there and not say a word or answer even one question...

"KILL THE MIKE, KILL THE MIKE" Words from AXE's and Klifferd's hero...

The UK Independents Party?

Lawls!

Campaigning on removing Gore's film from public schools?

Basically, these guys are much like Teabaggers only with worse teeth.

cooling and warming have both taken place for Billions of years even BEFORE SUV'S or Republicans...

Uh-huh.

That one never gets old with you morons, does it?

Nobody is questioning the existence of historical climate shifts.

Everybody knows all about 'em.

Do you imagine that climatologists are gonna suddenly sit up and go "Wow, we never thought of THAT"?

The A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic.

That means "man-made".

Did you know that?

Is different thing.

the GODFATHER in hiding

Luff this meme.

Gore is still going around the world plugging his book and film. Next month he goes to Prague to face off with noted climate skeptic and Czech President Vaclav Klaus. That oughta be good. His greenfunds are still supporting newer greener cleantech. The idea that he's in hiding is a RW wing that's being spread about by the denialist crowd.

Be Well.

vodpod.com

Global warming Hero Al Gore in action...

"Kill the MIKE"

Why is that is he afraid of question's like most liberal Democrats...

They don't like talking about the American Revolution much there either for some odd reason.

Can we change the headline here to sommat a little less mis-leading?

Like... "Fringe Political Group Threatens to Ban Gore Film in UK"

Be Well.

What I loved on this subject was the UK's court-system requiring schools to show counter-information when showing Gore's movie and one of the biggest reasons was demonstrative falsehoods contained within Gore's movie.

cooling and warming have both taken place for Billions of years even BEFORE SUV'S or Republicans...

Uh-huh.

That one never gets old with you morons, does it?

Well the inconvenient Truth is timeless there Spud...

The idea that he's in hiding is a RW wing that's being spread about by the denialist crowd.

Be Well.

#13 | Posted by dethspud

LOL LOL oh come on spud he is the Godfather of this GLOBAL lie, you would think news reporters would be following him every where he goes asking about known false data being used...

Can we change the headline here to sommat a little less mis-leading?

Be Well.

#16 | Posted by dethspud

Don't worry Rogers always changes my headline...

Ataxpayer isn't very bright, is he?

It's too late already.

The future will not be kind to stupid people.

www.rtcc.org

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still touting the hockey-stick graph, Zat?

Global warming Hero Al Gore in action...

Gore answered the guys question and then refused to let it become a debate there.

Continuing to whine on and on after you've been told you can't ask questions all day long and then acting like you've "spoken truth to power" when yer mic gets cut is pathos incarnate.

The Polar bear population, like the ice on the South Pole, is decreasing in some places and increasing in other places making it simple fer folks to skew their results depending on what conclusion they want to come to.

The Global Polar Bear population was down to around 5,000 in the 1950's. They were on their way to becoming endangered before bans on hunting them went into effect. Now the estimated population is 20 to 25 thousand. That's a nice comeback to be sure but the fact remains that these large mammals are dependent on the ice shelves to be able to feed themselves and reproduce. Already Climate Change has forced some of the population to retreat with the ice into regions they are not native to leading to polar bear/grizzly hybrids being born. Canada, btw, doesn't have them on out SARA list (basically equivilant to the US ESA list) yet.

As the summer melt continues to increase the chances of the Polar Bear's inclusion on that list approaches one.

Be Well.

Still touting the hockey-stick graph, Zat?

#22 | Posted by JeffJ

The hockey stick graph is, largely, valid.

The authors themselves went out of there way to assert that the uncertainties about the data were the point to the thing.

Do you know wot the original title of the MBH paper that the Hockey Stick Graph came from is called?

"Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"

All the hub-bub raised by the denialists on this issue came to a head in 2006 when Congress authorzsed a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years". It was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.

The panel published its report in 2006.[30] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect.

Furthermore the witch hunt against Mann for political purposes was later described by The American Association for the Advancement of Science was "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."

The Hockey Stick Graph.

Not debunked.

Be Well.

/Well, that was fun as always
stage left.

The Hockey Stick Graph.

Not debunked.

www.technologyreview.com

The best Zat could do was provide a link dated 2006.

You are seriously contradicting yourself.

www.news.com.au

"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."

Even if the ice was melting this is a natural cyclical occurrence that has been repeated over and over without SUV's Republicans or Moose Farts, it's called Solar Cycles...

www.news.com.au

"The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps."

It's like making your favorite adult beverage, after adding the ice does your drink overflow just because the ice melted, of course not you just wind up with a watered down drink, happens to me at the local tavern all the time...

The future will not be kind to stupid people.

#21 | Posted by Zatoichi

Another self fulfilling prophecy there ZAT...

If climate change is bogus, why do climate change deniers spread so much blatantly misleading information? UK schools are not banning climate change information. This link is about a proposal by a UK political party on the fringe that has no members of parliament and will never get it enacted. It is a publicity stunt.

If climate change is bogus, why do climate change deniers spread so much blatantly misleading information?

I can only speak for myself, but I do not deny "Climate Change," what I do deny is "Man-made Climate Change" and that the actions put forth will do anything about it. Without massive reproduction rights reform of some type, it is all for naught. We will continue to spread and continue to remove what we need to make room for the new.

If climate change is bogus, why do climate change deniers spread so much blatantly misleading information?

If the AGW theory is legitimate, why to AGW supporters spread so much blatantly misleading information?

It cuts both ways.

"It is a publicity stunt."

Doesn't keep JeffJ from lying out his ass, though.

Athabasca Glacier Retreat
www.flickr.com

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not real bright, are you Jeff?

#22 | Posted by Zatoichi

LOL this coming from the 1 in 5 people who still believe in Globalgate and the Easter bunny. ZAT you remind me of FOREST GUMP not real bright but funny as hell...

If climate change is bogus, why do climate change deniers spread so much blatantly misleading information.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-26 12:43 PM

Rcade how can you or anyone else explain how NASA Scientest report because of Solar Activity the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years.

Futhermore Global warming is also causing ice to melt on Mars. Since there are no cars on Mars and yet there is warming how do you explain this...

This just in more bad news for the 1 in 5 who still believe in Global Warming and the Easter Bunny...

"Bad news for global warming alarmists: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in this country because the agency has relied on bad science in particular, the 2007 report issued by the United Nations Climate Change Panel based on a student paper, a handful of magazine articles and some fraudulent data."

A STUDENT PAPER and some magazine articles HA HA HA LOL LOL...

#2 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD

Well said, Klif.

#36 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-02-26 02:02 PM

Perhaps if you relied on some facts along with current events instead of Klifferd you would appear to be more knowledgeable...

If the AGW theory is legitimate, why to AGW supporters spread so much blatantly misleading information?

Such as what, exactly? Among the massive amount of scientific evidence of man-made global warming, a handful of studies have been erroneous and a few scientists may have said inappropriate things in email. That's still a small drop in the rising oceans.

On the Retort, the misleading headlines and bogus links are coming almost entirely from climate change critics. The headline of this link is a case in point.

1) Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is challenging the EPA because the agency has relied on bad science primarily a student paper, and a handful of magazine articles...

2) Global warming is melting the polar ice caps on MARS all without manmade emissions please tell us how could this be...

Damn pesky facts again...

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-26 02:22 PM

Rcade just explain the following question I would really enjoy any theories you may have on the subject...

Global warming is melting the polar ice caps on MARS all without manmade emissions please tell us how could this be...

Is it possible SUV emissions along with MOOSE FARTS are traveling throughout our solar system and have finally contaminated our closest neighbor...

#37 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER
"Perhaps if you relied on some facts along with current events instead of Klifferd you would appear to be more knowledgeable..."

Facts and current events are precisely what I rely on.
I complimented Klif's post and sentiment, I wasn't "relying" on him.
Had you noticed that you would appear to be more knowledgeable.

My my, what exactly is your problem with that?

Or are you just blindly leaping to conclusions for the sake of a silly post? Happens a lot here.

"....coming almost entirely from climate change critics."

I think nobody would deny that "climate change" happens. Hell, it's been going on for millenia. The argument revolves around man's contribution to it, which many of us maintain is minimal. I think many aren't sure whether it's warming or cooling either. The debate surely is NOT over and it's certainly foolish to further destroy our economy with Draconian measures when so many others, like China, India, Mexico et al won't do anything.

On the Retort, the misleading headlines and bogus links are coming almost entirely from climate change critics. The headline of this link is a case in point.

#38 | Posted by rcade

Ataxpayer thinks Rcade knows a catchy headline when he sees one, that being said yer post sommat bears that out.

Be Well er wus that Hasta Laradoo...

#42 | Posted by jestgettinalong

aNd the First DEAD BALLS ACCURATE award of the day goes to jestgettinalong, sorry Rcade any plausible theory on why MARS has Global warming and the award would have been yours...

#41 | Posted by TheTom

OHHHH GOODY: "Facts and current events are precisely what I rely on." Then you must be able to explain how the polar ice caps on MARS are melting at a horrific rate all without manmade emissions...

Unless it is true that SUV emissions and MOOSE FARTS are capable of interstellar space travel contaminating MARS and thus creating SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING...

Joining the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year and would have virtually no effect on earths temperature...

But there are simple things we can all do to prevent this...

1) Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide...

2) Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is...

3) DON'T LIVE IN A HOUSE or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars...

4) DON'T WEAR CLOTHING produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand...

5) QUIT SCHOOL Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years...

6) EAT RAW MEAT Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide...

7) TURN OFF this monitor and computer - You hypocrite...

8) DON'T USE THE TOILET, instead PISS or SHIT in your back yard. The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity...

8) Die ...

9) Stick a bone through your nose and move into a cave...

OOOPS 8 and 9 should be reversed...

Global warming is melting the polar ice caps on MARS all without manmade emissions please tell us how could this be...

We're talking about man-made climate change. Mars is a red herring. Its climate is driven primarily by massive dust storms (or their absence) and albedo.

We're talking about man-made climate change. Mars is a red herring.

So is the concept of "man-made" climate change. It is a naturally occuring cycle that has happened on this planet numerous times already.

#45 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER
Oh goody.
Atax, at what point did you decide to stop thinking critically?

Let me 'splain it for you.

Klifferd's #2 post was to illustrate that how many people believe in something has little to no bearing on whether or not it's true.
Is this not precisely what YOU think regarding AGW proponents?
For the record, this applies to BOTH sides of the GW debate.

He also illustrated that flawed or fraudulent or questionable data in some aspects of debate does not automatically undo an entire argument or school of thought.
For the record, this also applies to BOTH sides of the GW debate.

He also stated that he doesn't care what people believe, but rather wants the facts.
Is this not YOUR very argument?

In any case, I thought he expressed his ideas well, so I commented, "Well said".

I have no idea what Klifferd's stance is on AGW, nor is it relevant to me, since contrary to your adolescent accusation, I don't "rely" on him.

To answer your question, I don't know what qualifies as "horrific" when it comes to Martian ice caps melting.
But I would imagine the cause to be
a) solar-related, and
b) heat-trapping dust in the atmosphere.
This process is somewhat different on Mars, due to its thinner atmosphere.
Why, did you assume I might think otherwise?
SUV emissions and moose farts? Is that your A-game?

You saw I complimented someone with whom you disagree, and therefore assumed you knew anything at all about my AGW ideas.
Apparently, at that point (at the latest), you disengaged your brain and instead went for a poorly-aimed cheap shot.
And of course missed.

Ironic that Klif closed #2 with "the logic in this debate is non-existent."
When it comes to you, turns out he was right.
So, again, well said, Klif.

We're talking about man-made climate change. Mars is a red herring. Its climate is driven primarily by massive dust storms (or their absence) and albedo.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-26 03:25 PM

I would agree with you in the context the Albedo's strength is directly proportional to the output of the Sun driving the atmospheric properties on Mars such as dust storms to either heat or cool...

That being said one must take into account the solar heat radiating from the Sun as a primary factor...

Where is Al Gore anyway, he seems to be in hiding scared shitless he will have to answer some very very Inconvenient Questions...

#3 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2010-02-26 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:still can't understand why it is snowing in winter

#52 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER
"I would agree with you in the context the Albedo's strength is directly proportional to the output of the Sun driving the atmospheric properties on Mars such as dust storms to either heat or cool...
That being said one must take into account the solar heat radiating from the Sun as a primary factor..."

There. You see how easy it is to have an intelligent, coherent conversation?

#54 | POSTED BY THETOM

Okay, now I'm the one being a prick.
Apologies.

#51 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-02-26 03:35 PM

Let's just say I stirred the pot a little when it comes to Klifferd and the 1 in 5 scenario, as for Moose Farts Google it along with Global warming the answers may surprise you...
As for your contention "solar-related" and "heat-trapping dust" I would agree, wish I had more time...

Hasta Laredoo and much respect...

#55 | Posted by TheTom

No need for Apologies sometimes stiring the pot creats a good debate besides I deserved it...

Out of time...

So is the concept of "man-made" climate change. It is a naturally occuring cycle that has happened on this planet numerous times already.

The amount of atmospheric CO2 was stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million for the last 10,000 years. Over the last 250 years, human industrial activity has increased it by 100 parts per million and it increases more every single year.

co2now.org

CO2 traps more heat in the atmosphere. Our planet is accumulating heat. This is observed in numerous studies of ocean temperature, receding glaciers, melting icebergs and air temperature.

There is room for argument about the rate at which the planet is warming and the degree to which humans are responsible. But the idea that there's absolutely no human cause for warming is crackpot.

Well, Atax, if it makes you feel any better
(and I really hope it doesn't),
I just accidentally broke an unopened bottle of 12-yr Glenlivet.

FML.

Well, Atax, if it makes you feel any better

#59 | Posted by TheTom

OH SHIT:( Let it never be said that Ataxpayer was responsible for spilling even one single drop of such a fine Scotch Whisky...
Sorry Tom...
Hasta Laredoo...

Y'all should be drinking Cadenhead whiskey.

I'll have to try that one of these days...

www.wmcadenhead.com

Funny, there's a Wiki link for Cadenhead Peated Single Malt Irish whiskey as well, but it goes to Cooley Distillery...en.wikipedia.org

birther butt-buddies.

#5 | Posted by axe at 2010-02-26 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do all of Axe's posts refer to anal sex, or just most of them?

"The hockey stick graph is, largely, valid."

except when it's not.

Science!

www.boston.com

www.wired.com

www.petitionproject.org

1. Is the Petition Project fulfilling expectations?

The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

Moreover, the current totals of 31,486 signers, including 9,029 PhDs, are limited only by Petition Project resources. With more funds for printing and postage, these numbers would be much higher.

2. Has the petition project helped to diminish the threat of energy and technology rationing?

The accomplishments of science and engineering have transformed the world. They have markedly increased the quality, quantity, and length of human life and have enabled human beings to make many improvements in the natural environment of the Earth.

Today, scientists are seeing the accomplishments of science demonized and one of the three most important molecular substances that make life possible - atmospheric carbon dioxide (the other two being oxygen and water) - denigrated as an atmospheric "pollutant" in a widely circulated movie. Scientists who have carefully examined the facts know that this movie contains numerous falsehoods. This and many other similar misguided propaganda efforts in the media, naturally repel men and women who know the truth. The search for truth is the essence of science. When science is misrepresented, scientists are naturally incensed.

There is, therefore, a rapidly growing backlash of opposition among American scientists to this egregious misuse of the reputation and procedures of science. The Petition Project is helping to demonstrate this opposition and, therefore, to reduce the chances of misguided political reductions in science-based technology.

3. Who organized the Petition Project?

The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions. The petition statement and the signatures of its 31,486 signers, however, speak for themselves. The primary relevant role of the organizers is that they are among the 9,029 PhD signers of the petition.

4. Who pays for the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

8. Why is this effort called "Petition Project?"

Signatories to the petition have signed just the petition which speaks for itself. The organizers themselves scientists located at several scientific institutions have designed the project to emphasize this single fact. The use of a post office box mailing address, a generic name Petition Project, and other institutionally-neutral aspects of the project are intended to avoid the impression that the signatories have endorsed the agenda or actions of any institution, group, or other activity. They are simply signers of this petition to the government of the United States, as written.

9. Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project.

10. Why is the Petition Project necessary?

In December 1997, then U. S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification.

Since before that Kyoto meeting and continuing to the present day, Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the "science is settled" that an overwhelming "consensus" of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.

Moreover, for more than 10 years these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that, in view of this claimed scientific "consensus," no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy.

Since, however, these claims were not successful in convincing the United States government to initiate energy rationing, the United Nations has held a series of international meetings attended by a central group of about 600 scientists, some additional scientists outside of this group, and a large number of political and bureaucratic representatives approximately 2,000 in all. The United Nations has also hosted larger meetings, including many non-scientist participants from environmental, business, and political organizations.

During and after each of these meetings, there have been further publicity campaigns claiming that the "science is settled" that the "consensus" of scientists in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that further examination of the science is unnecessary.

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed "consensus" does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.

The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded. In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries.

As Professor Seitz states, in his Petition Project letter which speaks of this impending threat to all humanity, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

The Petition Project is a means by which those citizens are offering that advice.


This one is for you, Zat.

Lots of links you won't like, I'm sure.

www.spaceref.com

The headline says "Goreacle Propaganda is Banned From Schools In The UK". What a lousy job of fantasizing a headline. This is even more pathetic than what they do at Fox Nation.

Not only is "Goreacle propaganda" not banned, it doesn't even exist. It's the opinion of one man. As if Gore is the sole reason why agw is accepted. Hardly textbook material.

Come on, deniers. Surely you can do better than just screaming "Al Gore" when we want to have a decent discussion.

"This is why you Rtard skidmarks will never be taken seriously on DR or anywhere else in life."

Uhhhh...I think they are being taken seriously in VA, NJ, and MA, Axe. Washington is where the real "retard skidmarks" are now. They haven't listened up yet and a lot of them will be gone soon. Why do you and your little friends always do this to yourselves? You put your little buddies in office for one term every decade or so, fuck everything up, and get thrown out. Who are the REAL rtards here, Axe?

"As if Gore is the sole reason why agw is accepted."

Well, he's the one who won the Nobel Prize, so that should qualify him for the title, "Goreacle." Just like the other guy who won the Nobel Prize is entitled to be the "Great Glorious Community Organizer."

If Al Gore never existed or talked about agw, it wouldn't change a thing. He is simply one of the top celebrities informing people.

I say this for the benefit of the deniers. What's the point in telling us how much you hate Al Gore when discussing science?

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable