You mean the crock there is concensus or the crock that the models are accurate or the crock that Gore presented to the world?  or....  yes the list is rather long.

I didn't watch any video....  I don't waste my limit on youtube.

I also never said I did...  you keep lying about me but that's ok
I'm used to it.

After all lying and hypocrisy go hand in hand with you.

For those too lazy or bandwidth challenged to watch the You-Tube video, here is an explanation:

Of all the oily tricks played by the global warming denier industry, The Oregon Petition is one of the oiliest. It was organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine — a 'scientific institute' that nevertheless doesn’t do any real science.

The Petition Project was organized by late Frederick Seitz, who at one time was a real scientist, and a former President of the National Academy of Science. The project started by sending a so-called scientific study — really just a diatribe written by climate change skeptics that was filled with half-truths — asking “scientists” to sign a petition urging the US government not to ratify the Kyoto Accord.

The petition and that accompanying letter were written on a letterhead and in the style of a scientific paper that made it seem like it had been published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, so it was designed to be deceptive.

After the petition appeared, the NAS issued a press release. “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.”[14] It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

Nevertheless, 17,000 did sign the petition, and Seitz would have you believe that all 17,000 - or 32,000 in 2009 - are working scientists with PhDs. In fact, virtually none of them are. When you look deeper into the list, it falls apart. The vast majority of signatories have nothing more than a bachelor’s degree. By Seitz’s definition, I’m an advanced scientist. As well, scattering among the number of “scientists” are signatures by Spice Girl Dr. Geri Halliwell, author John Grisham, Hawkeye Pierce and BJ Honeycutt from MASH. (These have since been removed).

Of the original 17,000, almost 10,000 signatures come from engineers, another 3,063 come from physicians and veterinarians. I have no doubt that these professionals are smart people, but it would be difficult to believe they are climate change experts.

But even if we allow their signatures to stand unchallenged, they prove nothing. Even if more than 3,000 doctors and veterinarians signed the petition that would mean that the vast majority of all doctors and engineers didn’t sign the petition.

Grendel wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 11:36pm:


Hey - the denialist conference recently organised by the Heartland institute had a great deal. The cost of registration was $750, but you got a discount of 20% if you signed the petition.  

Horsefeathers!

http://www.grist.org/article/A-roomful-of-cynics/

That's a link to that esteemed 'conference'. It's a pity that they all disagree with each other.


Arthur Robinson is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a paper-only “institution” with no students and no courses. He himself is a chemist by training; his claim to fame in the realm of climate change skepticism is that he created the “Oregon Petition,” a fraudulent document that pretended to come from the National Academy of Sciences.

It is a pity you are too stingy with your bandwidth to actually watch the video that muso linked to.

The "Oregon Institute" is a building that looks alarmingly similiar to a tractor shed.

The Images showing the totally deceitful way that the petition was designed, to look as if it was from a published peer reviewed article from the National Academy of Science, right down to an issue no. and published date, on a copy of the Science Institutes letterhead and format, all totally false, and totally deceitful.

I fail to understand how you can keep accepting these denialist arguments on their face value, when the total dishonesty of so many of them have been exposed as appalling frauds, but you refuse to even examine the evidence against them.

We see you categorising the exposure of these acts of fraud as shooting the messenger, when it is nothing more than exposing liars and charlatans, for what they are.

I have never doubted your sincerity grendel, but I am sure if you actually looked at the evidence against the frauds who perpetrate the likes of this "Oregon Petition" which we see continually touted by denialist spruikers as a source of scientific validation for their beliefs, that your integrity would force you to accept that there are forces out there that are actively promoting and distributing outright lies, and misinformation to promote the denialist cause.

Now that may not necessarily cause you to change your stance, but it should, at the very least, cause you to be far more selective in what you choose to accept as evidence that supports that belief.

I'm not sure why the "modest" nature of the Oregon Institute or the multidisciplinary nature of the petition signatories are particularly relevant issues.  One could reverse the tactics and point out that AGW supporters tend to be funded by government or academia, both of which are of heavily politicized.  Instead of character assassination perhaps we should look at the science?  As far as I can tell both sides of this debate have put out their fair share of good science and their fair share of sloppy science.

Grendel wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 10:33pm:


I doubt that very much. I tried to explain that in detail once, and you ignored it. It can be proven.

You obviously don't mean scientific proof, because there is no such thing.  So what standards of proof do you require?

1. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" - used in criminal cases
2. "Clear and Convincing Evidence" - used in fraud cases
3. Preponderance of the Evidence - Used in civil cases
or 4. Substantial Evidence - Used in most administrative cases