Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

Another example of how the retards, in the astroturfed cult of denial of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes that the fossil fuel industry has ginned up, just love to sneer at the climate science that they are congenitally incapable of understanding.

Given your previous very idiotic posts on this subject, middy, it is no surprise that you get your misinformation from denier cult blogs like that one.

 

When the deniers are standing in water up to their knees with their hair on fire,they'll still follow the money-grubbers line on GW.

 

Deniers.. meh. :ack2:

The AGWH believers are in denial about the fact that really, at the end of the day, THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN TELL FOR SURE IF WE ARE HAVING A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE.

 

Just because you're too ignorant or not bright enough to understand the science doesn't mean that everyone else is too. Virtually the entire world scientific community agrees that mankind is definitely having a major effect on the climate.

Scientific opinion on climate change

****

 

OVER 30000 US scientists reject the warming hoax

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

So are you going to dredge up all of the thoroughly debunked denier cult myths one by one and pretend they mean something?

The only "hoax" is the one the fossil fuel industry is pulling to delay action on restricting carbon emissions.

The Oregon Petition

This fraud is the source of the climate change Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc “scientists have signed a petition saying climate change is not real etc.

The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.

It’s even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) “Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition.

• Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (Wikipedia)
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (SourceWatch)
• The Oregon Deception Project…..
• Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again
• Oregon petition warmed over
• Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
• The Oregon Petition
• Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
• debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
• Ignore Oregon petition
• Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
• RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign
• Petitioning on climate, part 1
• Petitioning on climate, part 2

Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren’t many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age – like there’s been no updates in the science recently?

Quote from National Academy of Sciences
“The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” Source

Some of the alleged signatories are actually dead.

Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see (enough said)

Oh yeah, here’s another example of Denier math (19=500) when counting “skeptics”

And on and on; it’s a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone’s time.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

Here's even more debunking of that particular denier cult myth.

What if the Oregon Petition names were real?

July 12, 2009 by greenfyre

The infamous “Oregon Petition” is the source of the various climate change Denier claims that 17,000, 31,000, 60,000 etc scientists “have signed a petition that…”

Peter Sinclair does a nice presentation telling the basic story of the Oregon Petition, so I leave it to him: 32,000 Scientists

I well remember when the updated Petition was released last year. I immediately thought:

“Right. Real scientists would sign a petition organized by some one man Oregon backwater. They wouldn’t publish refutations of the science in the literature, nor bring it up at conferences and symposia, nor use the various professional organizations and societies at their disposal, nor work through the National Academies and various professional institutions. Nope, not a chance.

For sure they’d just sign an on-line petition put up by someone who can’t even manage decent HTML [It's improved ... the original was much worse]. Real credible … and who was supposed to believe this? brain damaged rodents? children who hadn’t read ‘How and Why Wonder Books’?”
​

Of course the petition turned out to be even more ridiculous than it initially seemed (links at bottom). Still, the Petition found an audience gullible and desperate enough to accept it as credible.

A history of the Petition in terms of the key players, and an excellent breakdown of the signatories can be found at “The Global Warming Debate”

Predictably, like all of the Denier frauds, despite the Petition being "the same old shit" repeatedly exposed as a hoax it continues to be used as “evidence” that climate change science is not valid.

The most recent outbreak is in association with the NIPPC Report fraud. Some of the Denialophere are even claiming that the Petition’s signatories were affirming the validity of the NIPCC report, a report released a year after the Petition was.

In fairness it should be noted that the NIPCC report is nothing more than a rehash of the same nonsense of the earlier version that appeared last year, also after the Petition’s release. So even though it is still an absurdly idiotic claim, it is not necessarily as extreme as it seems.

What if the names were real?

There is one thing has always fascinated me about the Petition though … specifically, that even if it were not a fraud, it would still be meaningless, completely and utterly meaningless. The Deniers create so much Sturm and Drang about the validity of the names, and it doesn’t matter.

So, just for fun, let’s take a closer look at the Petition.

Gary Whittenberger assessed the methodology of the Petitions creation in Misleading by Petition: Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? and concluded that:

“Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.”
​

But let’s leave that aside too.

Robinson claims the Petition includes 31,000 scientists, 9,000 with PhDs (and the other 22,000 have what credential that makes them “scientists”?). Let’s pretend they’re all real scientists.

So what?

If the premise is that this is a HUGE number (as many in the Denialosphere have tried to claim, and still do), then what is our basis for comparison?

In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists. The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the Denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community.

Except, notwithstanding the extreme parochialism of the American Deniers, climate change is actually a global issue. It involves the global scientific community (who knew?), and the Petition has international signatories, so the real baseline for comparison is the global community.

There are an estimated 63 million scientists in the world, so even if the names were real, the Petition would have managed a stunning 0.005% of the scientific community.

It’s a fair bet that a far larger proportion of the scientific community smoke Gitanes, or collects antique watches, or are certifiably insane … all of which are just as meaningless as the Petition.

As is so often the case, clever readers have made variants of this point in the comments on this page, as have other blogs (I trained as an academic … I do not have original thoughts ).

Now, to his credit Robinson noted that “Science shouldn’t be done by poll, he explains. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.” ASIDE: “ warm bodies” is not literally true since a number of the signatories are dead and/or fictional. However, the observation that science is about facts, not numbers, is true.

Of course this same point is generally put forward by the Deniers as a pretext for dismissing the scientific consensus. Asking people to take anyone’s word based on solely credential would be an ‘Appeal to Authority‘ logical fallacy. An irrelevant dismissal since the consensus is merely a professional assessment of the validity of the science underlying our understanding of climate change.

The premise of the Petition is not that for some mysterious reason the signatories do not accept the scientific consensus, but that they agree with the ‘science’ (alleged) that accompanied the Petition.

So what about the science?

• Comment_on_Robinson_et_al
• OISM meets Mike Powell. OISM loses
• OISM
  

That alleged “science” is a ridiculous collection of distortions, errors, and outright falsifying of data (no surprises there). It is so bad that no one with any knowledge of climate science and a shred of integrity could take it seriously.

If the science were actually valid then only one advocate would have been needed.

Given that it is total gibberish, 31,000,000,000,000 signatures couldn’t save it. Not surprisingly most people note this fact and move on.

But let’s consider this a bit further. Not all of the signatures are bogus, and many of the real ones do have some sort of scientific credential.

Given that, what does their signature on the Petition actually mean?

Professional incompetence

I suggest that in effect, the signatories have made at least one, and possibly both of two statements, albeit inadvertently. They are saying that:

1) I, the undersigned, in an act of flagrant professional misconduct, stake my professional reputation and credibility on an issue that I have not the slightest understanding of. Further, I attest to the validity of a document that I do not understand, or most probably did not even read.

or
​

2) I, the undersigned, carefully reviewed the ‘science’ accompanying this petition, and I am clearly so uninformed and/or incompetent that I stake my professional credibility on what is obviously nonsense.
​

Regardless of which, to the extent that some of the names on the Petition are real, what we have here is a list of those who have self-identified as guilty of misconduct and/or total incompetence. After the professional Deniers, they are probably the last people you would want to consult for any sort of opinion about climate change.

What about their professional credibility?

What if a petition appeared where 31,000 medical practitioners claimed that cancer was caused by thinking impure thoughts? or 31,000 professional electricians which claimed that electricity could and should be conducted through spaghetti rather than metal wires?

I imagine that in either case the respective professional associations would be curious about who’s names appeared on those petitions, and maybe even wish to discuss their qualifications with them.

I am not advocating any sort of witch hunt for the Oregon Petition signatories. I am pointing out that when anyone uses their credential as a source of authority, they are the ones who have made their professional competence an issue. Having made it an issue, it is then fair game for others to call that competence into question.

In summary:

1. Even if the names were real, and
2. even if methodology wasn’t hopelessly flawed, and
3. even if the number of signatories actually was significant, and
4. even if the signatories were competent and had actually read the document,

it would still be utterly meaningless. It is the science and only the science that counts.

As Robin Williams said:

Reality, what a concept!
​

In reality, to the extent that there are real names on the Petition, what we have is a declaration of professional misconduct and/or incompetence.

Surely a cause for profound embarrassment. The signatories may want to contemplate that before they stake their reputations (such as they now are) on anything else.

Some articles which discuss the Oregon Petition

• A Climate Deception Revisited: What’s Behind the Signatures of 31,478 Skeptical “Scientists”
• The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
• The Oregon Petition : Deltoid
• Oregon petition: it’s back : Deltoid
• Oregon petition warmed over : Deltoid
• Sydney Writers’ Festival 2009: Stories from the Climate Change Front : Deltoid
• Misleading by Petition: Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming?
• The Oregon Deception Project…..
• Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
• One more Petition, still a consensus « Climate Change
• Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux « The Way Things Break
• One Blue Marble Blog Climate Change Myth #2: Many climate scientists still have doubts!
• Richard Littlemore | New Oregon Petition Promoter “Not Sufficiently Rational” to Advise Tobacco Industry
• Richard Littlemore | Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again
• Kevin Grandia | Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well
• oregon institute of science and medicine
• Art Robinson
• Oregon Petition
• Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
• debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
• Ignore Oregon petition
• Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
• RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign
• Petitioning on climate, part 1
• Petitioning on climate, part 2
• Lawrence Solomon is at it again…
  
• 31,000 “Scientists” (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming
• An angry letter, a petition, and…? « International Journal of Inactivism
• Oregon Petition: The MusicalAnonymuse comes through again …….
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (Wikipedia)
• Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (SourceWatch)
• The Oregon Petition

UPDATE: Aug 2nd

There is a comprehensive breakdown of the signatories at 2. The Scientific Consensus « The Global Warming Debate (begin about 1/3rd down the page).

Now add to that the equally comprehensive, but somewhat different analysis from Scholars and Rogues » 31,478… 13,245… 152 OISM “scientists” can’t be wrong where Brian does a much more detailed look at how representative the signatories are of their various disciplines.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

Yup. Looks like they juuuuusssst can't quite find the time to come back 'atcha ,Mr ghonadz. Yeah--that's the ticket. hahahahahhahahahaha-nice work.-

 

Apparently everyone is too stupid to understand the science behind it, and that we should just take the word of these government appointed experts on the matter.

 

I find it amazing how wound up the pro-AGWH camp get when people so much as QUESTION the legitimacy of these claims. Like, as if we change our minds that is going to make any difference! Nothing is going to change except the climate, people are going to continue using up the earth's resources at an unprecedented rate, so whether or not it's true that fossil fuels are causing global warming is immaterial anyway.

As a skeptic myself, I still support the idea of using oil sparingly. I ride a bike! I passed my driver's licence 22 years ago but I have NEVER owned a car!

I do fly to other countries, but in my defence that's because Scotland's shite and we're ruled by wankers.

I'm also open to the idea that maybe be are having a significant effect, I just don't believe we are in any position to tell one way or the other.

The earth's climate = thee most complex system known, and way more complex than any measurement of computer model can even dream of getting close to underpinning the mechanisms behind. Anyone with a basic understanding of chaos theory/ecology knows this.

 

Im doing my part to help...I have an ozone generator lol

 

The earth is warming up. We're speeding it up lots.

We can't tell just HOW much, but we CAN tell that we are.

Conspiracy theory about most stuff is a cheap cop-out, you don't have to deal with painful lies or painful reality, because you live in your own world and think whatever you want. And anyone who says something you don't like is just a conspirator.

 

And if you say that "we CAN" using upper case does that somehow add weight to your argument?

 

This applies to absolutely everything in science. Science is just words and numbers and we can never express the complexity of reality in words and numbers. Our concepts of gravity, magnetism and chemical reactivity are only models of how physical systems actually work and yet, lo and behold, they actually help us in predicting events. Global Warming science is no different.

 

That's what the AGW believers always say- but you cannot be certain of anything in science!

Duh, you can't be certain of ANYTHING!

But some things are more certain than others.

Dooosh!!!!!! Zombie argument!

 

....wasen't meant to, was just meant to properly counterbalance the other emphesis, and make the sentence read properly.

If you're saying it strengthens my argument, I'm not complaining

As you said, we can't be SURE of anything.... but we can be pretty secure in knowing that man is changing the climate, and quite a bit. Part of the intricacy you mentioned is the fact that the world's covered with people, doing various things that OBVIOUSLY change the environment in their areas. Then look how much space they take up, how big the warm spot from a metro area is, how big the smog cloud is, and think about the rest of the world.

There's self serving jerks everywhere. Are there climate change nuts with no facts to ground their claims? sure, just like the anti climate change nuts.

As with most things, the truth is a complicated mixture of many different peoples points of view.

 

It's also covered in water.

Can't disagree with that.

 

OK think about it this way, logically.

We are using modern technology to measure things on the planet and from outer space. But all the equipment used to take the measurements is also made from the earth's raw materials that are the product of billions of years of evolution, the same as our brains are.

The brain is the most poorly understood organism on the planet. If we can't understand our own brains then how can we understand the planet's brain?

Science has a long history of basing conclusions conclusions around flawed and shortsighted assumptions. I don't think it is a hoax, I just think they got it wrong.

 

www.thehoaxisahoax.com

 

No dude, lots of people are smart enough to understand climate science. I can understand the basics just fine. It's apparently just you and the other denier cult dingbats who are too stupid and ignorant of scientific basics to understand it.

And yeah, if you can't understand it, you'd best take the word of the experts, particularly when virtually all of the experts are in agreement. You seem to prefer to take the word of non-experts flacking for the fossil fuel industry.