Originally Posted by :
31 000 scientists can't be all wrong. Would you like to tell them that they are all paranoid as well?

You want a quote do you? Well try this.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

(signed last month by by 31 000 scientists including physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer)

Actually they were not scientists, they were people with science degrees including social sciences., as was evidenced by the lists people showed here. And that is an extremely small amount of sceince degrees, my uni would have had more graduates with science degrees while I was there.

Most of the top science organisations like the royal society has released opinions supporting the general scientific consensus towards MMGW.

Alot of those against seem to be simply politically motivated individuals.
[Rep]

I wrote in #18:-

Originally Posted by :
Baron von Lotsov
1. You haven't clearly answered my question so I repeat again:-

Where did you get your initial figures from ?

(I'm quite prepared to admit I may have misread the questionaire results but please tell me where ?)

& although I am not trying to plagiarise BonnieDundee's question, as he put it , what has the poll got to do with 'intelligence?

In # 20 BVL replied to the latter bolding statement that :-

Originally Posted by :
It's just my sense of humour that's all. ……

Oh really !!!!!! If you think I, (we), will swallow that then you must be like g hall believing in fairy tales. Well, I’ve just split my trousers laughing so much – not at your sense of humour so much as the laughable way you are trying to wriggle out of being caught out.

You tried to mislead us and you have been caught out. Full stop.
.........................
You have dealt with the second bolded issue in my #18 post. Please now deal with the first, which I repeat again :-

Where did you get your initial figures from ?

(As I said, I may have missed them in this linked poll, so I would like to see where I went wrong and/or possibly re-check your calculation).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Actually they were not scientists, they were people with science degrees including social sciences., .

Not the OISM .....again.:-)
I think even what you posted puts it in a better light than the lists of names suggest. A degree in a physical science was a mandatory requirement for signatories.
Here's a string of names exactly as they appear in the petition.

Originally Posted by :
Tina L. Baker, Robert Baker, Brooks H. Baker III, Harry R. Baker, Roland E. Baker, W. J. Baker, Theodore Paul Baker, Joseph H. Baker, MD, Randal Baker, Andrew D. Baker, Terry Baker, R. Baker, Leroy E. Baker, Robert J. Baker, Roger P. Baker, Robert L. Baker, Benny H. Baker, Gary E. Baker, Newton C. Baker, Herbert H. Baker, Gilbert Baker, Howard T. Baker, Jeffrey M. Baker, DVM, Benjamin H. Bakerjian, Gilbert B. Bakke, James R. Bakken, Daniel Bakker, George Bakopoulos, Lee A. Balaklaw, MD

A couple of doctors and a vet???
And the rest with no stated qualification whatsoever.
It's typical of the whole thing. Little wonder that it is often viewed with scepticism.
[Rep]

G hall,
I agree that the first question would have been better split into two separate ones however, in your assertion* that question(s) were designed to maximise the ‘Yes’ answer, you are assuming :-
a) The poll setters, (who were not the Guardian newspaper) were disingenuous, and presumably acting unethically from their trade association’s guidelines &
b) the target audience did not have the wit to separate the two issues.

I contend that there is even a bigger consensus in the world that Climate Change/Global Warming is actually happening than even the massive consensus that it is due to mankind’s activities so, therefore the respondents really only answered yes to the second part of the question.
(*& I disagree with that)

Secondly, if you take BVL’s figures, the poll setter’s weren’t very successful in ‘maximising the ‘Yes’ vote e.g:-
The ‘Tories’ were the most ’intelligent’ on green issues yet only 18% passed the test by answering ‘yes’ if you think it was pre-loaded.

Therefore, according to my calculation that makes 82% answered ‘No’ :-)

BTW the rest of the questions are largely to do with how local councils are dealing with CC and if you agree with it. If you do not agree with the basic proposition in the first place, why on earth would you vote ‘yes’ for those points. In fact, most of the questions require an ‘I agree/disagree/don’t know answer’ or ‘degrees of likely/unlikely’

So, I suggest that your hypothesis that the poll is ‘corrupt’ is completely unfounded.
[Rep]

Besoeker wrote:- (of BonnieDundee’s previous post)

Originally Posted by :
I think even what you posted puts it in a better light than the lists of names suggest. A degree in a physical science was a mandatory requirement for signatories.

Exactly my sentiments.
(I don’t think you should read any ‘criticism of your views, BonnieDundee, into this – in fact, for my part I admire you for being so 'polite' on this now tedious issue which contrarians regularly raise)

PS (Nice to see you back, B.)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
I think even what you posted puts it in a better light than the lists of names suggest. A degree in a physical science was a mandatory requirement for signatories.

That is not quite correct. If the list that Matt Davies or someone had is the same one we are talking about here there were plenty of people like economists, anthropologists etc, it wasn't just physical science degrees.

I think I could have signed it and I'm an economist specialising in monetary, particularly post-keynesian monetary, economics. So not quite the right field you could say.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
Not the OISM .....again.:-)
I think even what you posted puts it in a better light than the lists of names suggest. A degree in a physical science was a mandatory requirement for signatories.
Here's a string of names exactly as they appear in the petition.


A couple of doctors and a vet???
And the rest with no stated qualification whatsoever.
It's typical of the whole thing. Little wonder that it is often viewed with scepticism.

Well I don't know who they are because I didn't organise it. Clippo asked for a quote and I gave him one because he seems to be unable to accept anything unless it is said by someone else other than the person he is debating with, so I really don't feel the need to stand up for someone else's work.

If you look at the UN's 'all the scientists agree with us' claim of a few years back you will find that they were not all climate scientists either. The difference being that the UN makes us pay for their propaganda whereas the people who are against it are largely a grass roots sort of opposition and certainly with no tax raising powers. To criticise them for this is missing the point. They do what they can with the resources they have.

Oh and another point, did you see that the IPCC put in a massive complaint to OFCOM about that Channel 4 documentary? Well I always knew they were a little snide about it in order to extract the truth from these propaganda merchants and so it comes as no surprise the ruling was in favour of not treating these people fairly. However the UN's IPCC, using tax payer money made hundreds of points in the claim about the accuracy but OFCOM ruled that it did not materially mislead the public, in other words it was true. Compare to the High Court ruling on the Al Gore classic. The opposite ruling occurred and it was found that it did substantially mislead the public.
[Rep]

The truth is that if God himself came down and swore it was a scam as well as all the others saying so,clippo would still diss it and ask for better proof than this.

Clippo has operated exactly the same since coming on here,disregard what posters say,demand more proof,diss the proof and then put up another one of those extremely boring lists of names he seems to worship.

A complete waste of time and energy along with the chance he will make another complaint to those who have to spend more time on his mmgw-cc tosh,the Moderators.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Most of the top science organisations like the royal society has released opinions supporting the general scientific consensus towards MMGW.

and look at the state funding that they get as the state ups the taxes
I'll quote David Evans who used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office
"The AGO had a staff of maybe 100 and a budget of about 150 million AUS $ p.a. There were quite a few contractors and we were well paid - my salary was well into 6 figures"
The AGO was a state sponsored body

Originally Posted by :
Alot of those against seem to be simply politically motivated individuals.

Like Al Gore
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
G hall,
I agree that the first question would have been better split into two separate ones however, in your assertion* that question(s) were designed to maximise the ‘Yes’ answer, you are assuming :-
a) The poll setters, (who were not the Guardian newspaper) were disingenuous, and presumably acting unethically from their trade association’s guidelines &
b) the target audience did not have the wit to separate the two issues.

a. Who commissioned the poll and framed the questions then if not The Grudniad ?

b. MP's were the target I rest my case

Originally Posted by :
I contend that there is even a bigger consensus in the world that Climate Change/Global Warming is actually happening than even the massive consensus that it is due to mankind’s activities so, therefore the respondents really only answered yes to the second part of the question.
(*& I disagree with that)

If you bothered to read my posts I have stated that climate change NOT global warming is happening has happened and will continue to happen in the foreseeable future
Whether there is a global consensus nobody knows and nobody can know All the media talking heads in the world do not make a majority and how often are media people questioning the orthodoxy of MMGW not much

Originally Posted by :
Secondly, if you take BVL’s figures, the poll setter’s weren’t very successful in ‘maximising the ‘Yes’ vote e.g:-
The ‘Tories’ were the most ’intelligent’ on green issues yet only 18% passed the test by answering ‘yes’ if you think it was pre-loaded.

Therefore, according to my calculation that makes 82% answered ‘No’ :-)

BTW the rest of the questions are largely to do with how local councils are dealing with CC and if you agree with it. If you do not agree with the basic proposition in the first place, why on earth would you vote ‘yes’ for those points. In fact, most of the questions require an ‘I agree/disagree/don’t know answer’ or ‘degrees of likely/unlikely’

So, I suggest that your hypothesis that the poll is ‘corrupt’ is completely unfounded.

Have YOU actually looked at the results and as for your suggestion exactly what you would say isn't it
I am still of the opinion that it was corrupt
[Rep]