Evidence for Man Made Climate Change

[Poptech]

Why do you need a quote? are you denying the Independent article is accurate?

You made the false claim that he stated his paper was wrong. I have not seen a quote in his own words stating this. First of the all the Independent article does not state this and I do not trust their interpretation of what he said as I have seen this sort of propaganda before,

 

*****Update II: It appears that Borenstein may have misquoted one of his sources for this piece, or, at the very least, quoted him out of context. Toward the end of the article, Borenstein wrote:

 

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

 

Well, I e-mailed Dr. Christy, and this was his verbatim response:

 

Noel:

 

Please note that there are no quotes in the comment. In other words Bornstien [sic] is interpreting my comments because none of my quotes were evidently in concert with the them [sic] of the story. Our main discussion was about sea level rise from hurricane storm surges. I spoke about this as the real danger - not 1 inch per decade (or about 16 inches per century). My point was that since storm surges are the real problem, so being ready for 3 feet is better than nothing.

 

Interesting, wouldn't you agree? According to Christy, he was speaking to Borenstein about sea level rises during hurricanes. But that's NOT what Borenstein reported.

The liberal media is known for these dirty tricks.

[Wildcat]

You are the one who stated a lie, now show me the quote where Dr. Singer says cigarettes are good for you.

 

I was being flippant.... but anyway here is what sourcewatch says on Fred Singer....

 

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

 

A credible scientist ..... hmm I don't think so.

 

PS Robert Lindzen that you quote in your signature, also has some odd views on smoking....

 

I interviewed Lindzen in Boston and was impressed by his assurance as well as his cheerful chain‐smoking and delight in being contrary. He is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer.

 

http://www.griffith.edu.au/griffithreview/campaign/webarticles/williams_ed12.pdf

[Longcol]

The liberal media is known for these dirty tricks.

 

So which non - liberal media is paying for you to spread their story?

 

Not every day we get such a keen interest from citizens of New Jersey. BTW it isn't like SF has any influence on anything in particular.

[Poptech]

So which non - liberal media is paying for you to spread their story?

 

Not every day we get such a keen interest from citizens of New Jersey. BTW it isn't like SF has any influence on anything in particular.

You know who... the ones financed by the oil companies!

[Wildcat]

At least prison planet has editorial control and there is no chance the article will change the next time you look at it. It is an excellent read BTW,

 

It is also a load of obvious tosh.

 

The trick of using temperature readings rather than proxies is perfectly legitimate because it gives a more direct measurement.

[Poptech]

I was being flippant.... but anywhere here is what sourcewatch says on Fred Singer....

Ah yes the worthless sourcewatch,

 

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

 

- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

 

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

 

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

 

In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]

 

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

 

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."

 

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

- Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

 

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

 

PS Robert Lindzen...

As for Dr. Lindzen,

 

MIT's inconvenient scientist (The Boston Globe)

I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a "Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator.

 

He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits.

 

Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.

 

BTW I am not sure what your obsession with smoking has to do with climate change.

[Longcol]

You know who... the ones financed by the oil companies!

 

Whatever.......don't waste their money.

 

Despite the membership SF has only a couple of hundred active users and threads like this only attract a handful of people - none with any influence.

[Wildcat]

You made the false claim that he stated his paper was wrong. I have not seen a quote in his own words stating this. First of the all the Independent article does not state this and I do not trust their interpretation of what he said as I have seen this sort of propaganda before,

 

The liberal media is known for these dirty tricks.

 

Who is Borenstein? All the links take me to the same dodgy pages...

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsBusters

 

Also why is a 1 metre rise so alarmist?

 

Compare that with some studies... and you will see that it is a fairly modest assessment.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html

[Poptech]

The trick of using temperature readings rather than proxies is perfectly legitimate because it gives a more direct measurement.

You obviously don't understand what the "trick" is. It is deceptively deleting the inconvenient part of the proxy record that shows a decline in temperatures and replacing it with the instrument record to show an increase in temperature,

 

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline (American Thinker)

Mike's Nature Trick (Climate Audit, November 20, 2009)

Mike’s Nature Trick (Watts Up With That?, November 20, 2009)

The Trick (Climate Audit, November 26, 2009)

IPCC reviewer: "don’t cover up the divergence" (Watts Up With That?, November 26, 2009)

The Deleted Data from the "Hide the Decline" Trick (Watts Up With That?, November 26, 2009)

How “The Trick” was pulled off (Watts Up With That?, November 28, 2009)

IPCC and the "Trick" (Watts Up With That?, December 10, 2009)

[Poptech]

Whatever.......don't waste their money.

 

Despite the membership SF has only a couple of hundred active users and threads like this only attract a handful of people - none with any influence.

Good thing they are paying me all this green to post here!