when you mess with my kids, you've gone too far
This morning, before church, I had the TV on to the local news so that I could hear the weather report for the day. That's when it happened.
The news reader read the report that told how "top scientists" (anonymous of course) have now determined that, within the next 30 or 40 years, global warming will destroy life as we know it. Two-thirds of the world will flood, drinkable water will be nonexistent, disease will decimate the world's population, and all of the polar bears will die. Wow! Sounds like a Sci-Fi Channel mini-series!
If I had been the only one in the room listening I wouldn't have had a problem. I am smart enough and wise enough to know that the whole global warming circus is a scam by the left. I just would have laughed and gotten on with my life. Bad news, though. My 4-year old daughter was in the room and heard the breathless account by the news reader. She didn't understand most of it, but she sure understood the part about polar bears dying, and she was upset.
Now I was angry! If Al Gore wants to tell lies to left wing acorns, and if those nut brains want to believe him, who am I to criticize? They're pathetic, but they're not being pathetic in my space, so it's not my problem. When their lies find their way to my kids, though, I have a problem.
For the next 10 minutes, I had to explain to my 4-year old that there is a very bad man named Al Gore who tells lies to people because he wants to be president and because he wants other people's money. I had to tell her that everything the news reader said on TV was a lie, and that nothing bad was going to happen to the polar bears. She accepted what I told her, and everything was back to normal.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with all of this idiotic global warming hysteria. It's a lie, it's a scam, and it's a ruse to gain power for the left. Once a day, for as long as I do this blog, I'm going to post at least one article showing how bogus the whole Global Warming Travelin' Salvation Show is, and what a charlatan Brother Love Algore is.
www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.
The news reader read the report that told how "top scientists" (anonymous of course) have now determined that, within the next 30 or 40 years, global warming will destroy life as we know it. Two-thirds of the world will flood, drinkable water will be nonexistent, disease will decimate the world's population, and all of the polar bears will die. Wow! Sounds like a Sci-Fi Channel mini-series!
If I had been the only one in the room listening I wouldn't have had a problem. I am smart enough and wise enough to know that the whole global warming circus is a scam by the left. I just would have laughed and gotten on with my life. Bad news, though. My 4-year old daughter was in the room and heard the breathless account by the news reader. She didn't understand most of it, but she sure understood the part about polar bears dying, and she was upset.
Now I was angry! If Al Gore wants to tell lies to left wing acorns, and if those nut brains want to believe him, who am I to criticize? They're pathetic, but they're not being pathetic in my space, so it's not my problem. When their lies find their way to my kids, though, I have a problem.
For the next 10 minutes, I had to explain to my 4-year old that there is a very bad man named Al Gore who tells lies to people because he wants to be president and because he wants other people's money. I had to tell her that everything the news reader said on TV was a lie, and that nothing bad was going to happen to the polar bears. She accepted what I told her, and everything was back to normal.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with all of this idiotic global warming hysteria. It's a lie, it's a scam, and it's a ruse to gain power for the left. Once a day, for as long as I do this blog, I'm going to post at least one article showing how bogus the whole Global Warming Travelin' Salvation Show is, and what a charlatan Brother Love Algore is.
www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.
posted by hondo at 9:20 PM
5 Comments:
Hondo --- I'm sorry but there aren't 17,000 thousand scientests who signed that petition (a petition is all the Robinson paper is). Anyone can sign it --- your 4-year old daughter could sign it. Read the following excerpt from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I have an advanced degree in science (biochemistry & statistics) which obviously do not qualify me to study climate change --- but I DO know what good and bad science is. I read the Robinson paper and it is very very poor [pseudo] science. Please don't be so willing to accept something that claims to be scientific just because it supports claims which you wish to make. Read the following please:
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
Readers of my blog might be interested to read the following, pertaining to the petition that I linked to:
"During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project."
Go to www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
to verify that what I have quoted is true.
Also, go to www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
to see the paper itself. Judge for yourself what the truth is. As always, the truth is pretty clear.
Why are you so willing to devour this petition when NO ONE will publish it? Why has NO ONE agreed to so much as peer review this paper? There is nothing empirical about this paper. It is a research review that has cherry picked data from dozens of other articles (many of which SUPPORT global warming --- check it out for yourself!). It is a paper that has taken data out of context to convolute it into something that supports Robinson’s unfounded theory. Example: Robinson cites data that suggests inland ice sheets are getting thicker rather than thinner – these findings denounce global warming correct? Wrong! If you refer to the sources of this data, you will find that inland ice sheets are getting thicker because of increased precipitation. This increased precipitation over inland ice sheets is due to changing weather patterns caused by increased levels of calving and melting of coastal ice. Robinson, of course, fails to mention this minor detail. This sort of cherry picked data may bewilder and confuse most readers and make them think that there is this gigantic rift amongst the scientific community – which of course is exactly what Robinson (and all of the pseudo scientist wannabes that signed his petition) want. If all of those thousands of people that signed his document actually were REPUTABLE scientists, don’t you think someone would be willing to peer review it? Don’t you think someone would be willing to publish it?
Hondo, I linked to this site after reviewing the information. It agrees with the common sense conclusion I came to months ago.
It is sad that this anonymous "biochemist" fears to even provide a "pseudo" identity. He claims that the computer models are "good science" while time honored fields are "bad" science or even "pseudo" science just because they do not agree with the politically correct party line.
Good men have been suckered into believing the hype when they see iceshelves collapsing and bad storms. They fail to realize the big picture.
I doubt if your 4-year-old could sign the petition. I linked to the petition as well, and the information required would be fairly easy to verify to the petitioners. I recognized at least two names from South Carolina.
I agree with you, Henry, about the anonymous "biochemist." It's amazing to me that, if I blog about the war in Iraq, I'll receive anonymous comments from guys in "Special Forces," and when I blog about global warming, I get anonymous comments from "biochemists." Interesting!
I will, however, directly answer the questions from Mr. Science. You ask about why this study/petition has never been published. It's because most of the scientific journals that publish such studies disagree with this one. That's not too surprising, seeing as how there is a lot of money to be made in this cottage industry called global warming. Hysteria sells, which means that there's no money to be made in a paper/petition which says, "Stay calm. All is well."
My main purpose in harping on this paper/petition is to disprove the biggest lie that the global warming crowd tells, namely, that the debate is over and all scientists agree that global warming is true, and that we had better get right with algore before the sky falls. All of that is a lie, and the Oregon petition proves it. Thousands of scientists think that man-made global warming is a myth.
My question then is, "If they're lying about that, what else are they lying about?" The answer? The whole global warming charade is a lie, and "we the people" need to be wary of those who would take away our civil liberties and destroy the foundations of the American republic in the name of this junk science.
Post a Comment
<< Home