Who Are These People and Why Are They Lying to Me?

In all fairness to the oregon petition you might want to check out who debunked it and how it was done by salting phony names on it and then all of a sudden "discovering" these phony names.<a href="http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2381.htm">http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2381.htm</a> 
 
Not once, in all of this noise, has anyone attacked the science in our 8-page review or the substance of the statement signed by more than 16,000 scientists (and about 2,000 others). In all of the enviro publications, fewer than 10 people with university degrees in science have actually been quoted in opposition to the petition. 
 
The remarkable truth is that the global warming parade has very few adult scientist participants.

I notice you have not provided a link to the Oregon petition or to the list of names and what "scientific" credentials they hold. Why don't you do that for us?

Actually the "science" in the "review" has been taken to task in several places, including by Tim Lambert at Deltoid. If you follow the links within the links you will find that it has been thoroughly debunked, mostly because the "review" ignored the fact that heat islands had been accounted for in the original science.

Of course the "review" itself was fraudulent, trying to appear as if it was a peer-reviewed and published paper.

You will note that NO ONE who debunks the environment concerns as "junk science" actually LIVES in the crud we create. They are all safely tucked away somewhere else, and it's up to the worthless poor to suffer the brunt of our prosperity.

---
RickW

<a href="http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html"> OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING </a> THOMAS R. KARL,1 KEVIN TRENBERTH2 and JAMES HANSEN3 <li>1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA <li>2 Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA <li>3 NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Greenbelt, MD, USA The recent article by the chemists, Robinson and Robinson, appearing in The Wall Street Journal's Op-ed section on Thursday, December 4, 1997 "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth" claims that, "there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." The title of the article and the article itself contain many factual errors, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading statements. We enumerate some of these: The above group of adult scientists goes on to discredit the science offered by the Robinson's. The following group of adult scientists had this to say: The debate within the scientific arena about global warming has been very full and vigorous for several decades, and has amply demonstrated the value of peer review in confronting the mistakes and errors of omission made by scientists trying to reduce the uncertainties implicit in frontier scientific research. The nation is ill-served in determining public policy by attempts to bypass the error-finding mechanisms of science through petitions even when signed by thousands who have self-identified themselves as knowledgeable experts. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Signed by Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland, Dr. John P. Holdren, Dr. George M. Woodwell, Dr. Harold A. Mooney, Dr. Peter Raven and Dr. Jane Lubchenco Then there is this study:<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html">Stanford</a> High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals BY MARK SHWARTZ But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. The results of the study may prompt researchers and policymakers to rethink one of the standard arguments against taking action to prevent global warming: that natural ecosystems will minimize the problem of fossil fuel emissions by transferring large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere to plants and soils. The NAS had this to say about being unwittingly associated with the Oregon petition: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine">OISM</a> 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.

Would there not be mass deaths from all this pollution?I would think that at least a couple million by now in the US and Canada.

There are. But we call it cancer (or fill in your own "fave" - there's a ton o' them). You are likely looking for "spectacular" deaths, not the slow, insidious, lingering kind that pollution causes.

---
RickW

Milton,google is your friend.I thought if you were going to criticize it then I thought you would have at least read it and therefore I wouldn't have to post a link.

Where I live (Niagara Region, Ontario,) it seems like 1 in 3 have some form of cancer!!

---
Dave Ruston

Maybe you should get up from the computer and take a drive across Canada,see what the real worlds like.

Here Milton. 
<a href="http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/">http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/</a>

There seems to be a democratic deficit in Ottawa. Kyoto is important and ignoring it will not make the problem go away. It is about holding onto power these days. I can only hope voters hold them all accountable soon. Only the NDP and the Bloc are standing hard on Kyoto. Oddly enough they both stood for stopping Canadian participation in Star Wars and Martin had to back down.

? "Not once, in all of this noise, has anyone attacked the science in our 8-page review or the substance of the statement signed by more than 16,000 scientists (and about 2,000 others). In all of the enviro publications, fewer than 10 people with university degrees in science have actually been quoted in opposition to the petition."

Just in case you fine people missed it the first time.
And if you tell me it's a fraud I'll show you who tried to make it look like one,you may be surprised.

Something like 250 years of dumping garbage "outside the back door". Love Canal, The Sequel.

It's the stuff we can't see that gets us. And those who would dumpt their crap know this............

---
RickW

Kyoto must be called into question because it offers, as part of a solution, the process of trading carbon credits, and the monitization of pollution.

Without getting into a long boring spiel, at the end of the road, Kyoto is about Bankers, and a about the creation of a new type of money.

and, as everyone knows by now, "Give me control of the nations money, and I care not who makes its laws" Mayer Amshel Bauer Rothschild

Now, it's not suprising you NDP goofs are jackbooting behind Kyoto. Anyone can read the frothing glee behind the supposed sponsoreship kerfuffle, and how you believe there's political cache to be gained at the liberals expense.

I got news for you, YOu will NEVER have power, EVEN IF you are elected. The same breed that came out of the woodwork in the USA, and are commonly refered to as "NEO-cons", will come out of the woodwork in Canada, and TAKEOVER your party in Canada. I can here it now: 'The "neo-socialists" control everything in Ottawa' LOL

mark my words

Kyoto is a SCAM

Sponsorship bullshiet is a media driven event to get rid of independant liberals, the NWO (Bankers behind Kyoto) doesn't want around.