Tuesday, March 27, 2012
99.75% Of Scientists Say CO2 Rise Is beneficial - BBC Report Opposite
A few days ago Richard Bacon on BBC Radio 5 interviewed James Delingpole For a couple of hours beforehand he had been advertising his upcoming chastisement of Dellors the "denier" who was opposed to "97% of scientists".
Instead Dellors tore apart the "97%" lie and proved that Bacon was ignorant both of Dellors' book, which it was made obvious he hadn't read, but of any part of the alarmist case as well.
The "97%" claim is widely used by alarmists, not least by the BBC. Here is why it is a deliberate lie.
Bacon's ignorance was demonstrated by the fact that, at no time in the interview, did he attempt to introduce any factual arguments. It was entirely that it is the opinion of these 75 and some others but no discussion of any factual basis they may have had. In the end he was reduced to asking "is it possible that these scintists predictions may be right" without even being capable of answering James' response as to what
the specific predictions are. In fact these predictions range from Hansen's 0.5 C a decade claimed in 1988, through the Guardian's claim that the netherlands will be underwater by 2007 (both of which have definitely not come true) through to predictions of warming so low as to be virtually undetectable (which has). Clearly if he doesn't know what his question is it is difficult to complain about the answer.
However to show the problem with fighting BBC corruption - a couple of hours after this attempted demolition.the same channel did an interview with an eco-nutter who wants a ban on Britain exploiting any of the oil in British Atlantic waters, possibly depriving the British people of as many hundreds of billions as have come from the North sea.
The BBC, being bound by its Charter to "balance" andrespecting the law first spent a couple of hours saying how they were going to interview an econazi and then started by asking him a range of hostile questions while interrupting his answers introduced him as favourably as possible as an "environmentalist", asked him the softest possible and most supportive questions, gave him time, without interruption, to say everything he wanted and even went so far as to editorialise, when the econnazis only serious reason for banning this was that not burning oil would reduce CO2 that "cutting CO2 is a good thing". The BBC thereby proved that they are a national; news service of unique integrity a wholly corrupt, propaganda organisation every single employee of whom is obscene scum willing to tell any lie and censor any fact in the cause of the state fascism, no matter how damaging to the country or how many people are murdered by them.
On the more later:
By the standard, or actually far more factual than the standard, which allows corrupt journalists to claim "97%" of scientists on their side (4,810,000 so far) there is an opposite conclusion to be drawn.
The Oregon Petition has a list of 31,487 scientists who agree that not only is there no evidence of CAGW but that "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" (ie plants grow better with more CO2).
31,487 + 77 = 31564.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
So, ignoring even the fact that 31,564 is a much larger number than 77 & thus a much more statistically valid sample; that, while in both cases the sample is equally self selected by those who answered it in the latter case it is open to all scientists, in the former it is only open to a small subsection of scientists all, or almost all, of whom are paid by government to hold such beliefs....
Over 99.75% of scientists agree that catastrophic global warming is a lie and that that saying "cutting CO2 is a good thing" is a total lie, at least methodology our MSM aspire to.
This will be going to the world's media and we may say for a certainty that every single honest journalist will be far more willing to publish the 99.75% of scientists say CO2 rise is beneficial than the opposite.
By comparing how close the number of reports of the 2nd finding comes to the first
we will be able to determine what precise proportion of our media is in some way honest.
We will also see if Bacon or anybody at the BBC has the honesty to acknowledge that cutting CO2 is not provably a good thing.
Instead Dellors tore apart the "97%" lie and proved that Bacon was ignorant both of Dellors' book, which it was made obvious he hadn't read, but of any part of the alarmist case as well.
The "97%" claim is widely used by alarmists, not least by the BBC. Here is why it is a deliberate lie.
First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon after it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicised “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.On top of that all the question asked was whether mankind was having some effect on bringing about warming - nothing on whether it was a serious effect let alone one so catastrophic as to warrant spending these billions. On this more later. So of a self selected fraction of a selected fraction of government funded scientists it was only possible to find 75 who supported even the concept of anthropogenic global warming let alone anything catastrophic.
Bacon's ignorance was demonstrated by the fact that, at no time in the interview, did he attempt to introduce any factual arguments. It was entirely that it is the opinion of these 75 and some others but no discussion of any factual basis they may have had. In the end he was reduced to asking "is it possible that these scintists predictions may be right" without even being capable of answering James' response as to what
the specific predictions are. In fact these predictions range from Hansen's 0.5 C a decade claimed in 1988, through the Guardian's claim that the netherlands will be underwater by 2007 (both of which have definitely not come true) through to predictions of warming so low as to be virtually undetectable (which has). Clearly if he doesn't know what his question is it is difficult to complain about the answer.
However to show the problem with fighting BBC corruption - a couple of hours after this attempted demolition.the same channel did an interview with an eco-nutter who wants a ban on Britain exploiting any of the oil in British Atlantic waters, possibly depriving the British people of as many hundreds of billions as have come from the North sea.
The BBC, being bound by its Charter to "balance" and
On the more later:
By the standard, or actually far more factual than the standard, which allows corrupt journalists to claim "97%" of scientists on their side (4,810,000 so far) there is an opposite conclusion to be drawn.
The Oregon Petition has a list of 31,487 scientists who agree that not only is there no evidence of CAGW but that "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" (ie plants grow better with more CO2).
31,487 + 77 = 31564.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
So, ignoring even the fact that 31,564 is a much larger number than 77 & thus a much more statistically valid sample; that, while in both cases the sample is equally self selected by those who answered it in the latter case it is open to all scientists, in the former it is only open to a small subsection of scientists all, or almost all, of whom are paid by government to hold such beliefs....
Over 99.75% of scientists agree that catastrophic global warming is a lie and that that saying "cutting CO2 is a good thing" is a total lie, at least methodology our MSM aspire to.
This will be going to the world's media and we may say for a certainty that every single honest journalist will be far more willing to publish the 99.75% of scientists say CO2 rise is beneficial than the opposite.
By comparing how close the number of reports of the 2nd finding comes to the first
we will be able to determine what precise proportion of our media is in some way honest.
We will also see if Bacon or anybody at the BBC has the honesty to acknowledge that cutting CO2 is not provably a good thing.
Labels: BBC, Fear, global warming
Comments:
<< Home
31,487 + 77 = 31564.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
This type of lunatic pseudo math once again demonstrates the idiocy and psychosis of Neil Craig.
The Oregon Petition was *not* a petition of climate scientists. It was not even a petition of scientists in *general*. It was an open door invitation to *anyone* who wanted to grind an ideological axe and reject climate science. The National Academy of Sciences specifically repudiated it as nonsense even though the OISM, lying as blatantly as Neil Craig, *claimed* it had the Academy's endorsement.
This has been explained to you again and again and again. But the infectious sheep midges and a low IQ curse you to a life of ignorance and delusion, Mr. Craig.
The Illinois survey specifically focused on *climate scientists*. The reason there were "only" 75 respondents is because the response rate was low, and the baseline number of people whose research focus is climate is not that high in the first place. Climate science is beyond the grasp of most of us (including the idiots who signed their names to the Oregon Petition.) And you don't get to count non-respondents as agreeing with you, Mr. Craig.
James Delingpole (I like the way you can't even keep the name of your own source straight) is a proven idiot and lunatic. When he cannot *find* a quote that embarrasses his rivals, he *invents* them, and even admits they are inventions. He's a fool, Mr. Craig.
Although to his credit, he can at least spell his own name, and if pressed, could probably spell yours as well, Mr. Craig. You might consider returning the compliment.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
This type of lunatic pseudo math once again demonstrates the idiocy and psychosis of Neil Craig.
The Oregon Petition was *not* a petition of climate scientists. It was not even a petition of scientists in *general*. It was an open door invitation to *anyone* who wanted to grind an ideological axe and reject climate science. The National Academy of Sciences specifically repudiated it as nonsense even though the OISM, lying as blatantly as Neil Craig, *claimed* it had the Academy's endorsement.
This has been explained to you again and again and again. But the infectious sheep midges and a low IQ curse you to a life of ignorance and delusion, Mr. Craig.
The Illinois survey specifically focused on *climate scientists*. The reason there were "only" 75 respondents is because the response rate was low, and the baseline number of people whose research focus is climate is not that high in the first place. Climate science is beyond the grasp of most of us (including the idiots who signed their names to the Oregon Petition.) And you don't get to count non-respondents as agreeing with you, Mr. Craig.
James Delingpole (I like the way you can't even keep the name of your own source straight) is a proven idiot and lunatic. When he cannot *find* a quote that embarrasses his rivals, he *invents* them, and even admits they are inventions. He's a fool, Mr. Craig.
Although to his credit, he can at least spell his own name, and if pressed, could probably spell yours as well, Mr. Craig. You might consider returning the compliment.
# posted by 
: March 27, 2012
: March 27, 2012
Skip once again you fully demonstrate the intellectual standard required of those "scientists" who claim to have been "published in the finest journals" on the subject of global warming.
The Orgeon Petition never claimed to be limited to climate scientists, let alone those self styled "climate scientists" who are merely computer modellers with very limited understanding of computer modelling. In the same way I would not expect a poll on whether astrology is a real science to limited to those making their living from astroligy.
You are, of course, wrong about the replies. It was not 75 replies but 77 (75 being 97% of 77 as already explained. This was not achieved by limiting the question to so few. In fact sli8ghtly over 10,000 people were asked. Your ignorance of your own case is noted.
Your remarks about Mr Delingpole are made without any attempt at evidemce and are obviousw lies. They obviously represent the highest standard of honesty you or your econazi pals on "scienceblogs" ever aspire to.
Were you, as an allegedly published scientist, capable of reading in detail you would already know that Mr Delingpole can spell my name.
The Orgeon Petition never claimed to be limited to climate scientists, let alone those self styled "climate scientists" who are merely computer modellers with very limited understanding of computer modelling. In the same way I would not expect a poll on whether astrology is a real science to limited to those making their living from astroligy.
You are, of course, wrong about the replies. It was not 75 replies but 77 (75 being 97% of 77 as already explained. This was not achieved by limiting the question to so few. In fact sli8ghtly over 10,000 people were asked. Your ignorance of your own case is noted.
Your remarks about Mr Delingpole are made without any attempt at evidemce and are obviousw lies. They obviously represent the highest standard of honesty you or your econazi pals on "scienceblogs" ever aspire to.
Were you, as an allegedly published scientist, capable of reading in detail you would already know that Mr Delingpole can spell my name.
The OISM survey is *not* 30k+ “scientists”, Mr. Craig. It was purely an open door invitation to anyone—even people who have never read a peer reviewed article in their life, let alone ever written one—to claim *any* expertise or training they wanted. It was so fraudulent that the NAS had to specifically disavow OISM’s lie that the Academy supported the survey, and numerous names that occurred in the original petition were of people who specifically *repudiated* the petition’s claims.
It was the purest fantasy and fraud from a quack non-think tank that still lists dead people as members of its faculty.
Moving along: What your quote from “Dellors” says:
“a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).”
This, Mr. Craig, is what happens when you rely on a liar and a fool for your information.
The *overall* number of responses was 3,146 among *all* the earth scientists surveyed. They *disaggregated* responses by different scientific specialties, including meteorology, climate, and others. To quote from the survey, which I read when it came out in 2009 but which you did not, because you never read, the number of respondents whose specialty was *climate specifically* was,
“. . . 79 individuals in total . . . . Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 [When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?] and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. [Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]”
Because Delingpole (or does he preferred to be called “Dellors”; let me know when he gets back to you), like you, is illiterate and/or dishonest, he took the number of answers from Question 2 and called that the response rate of the original 10,257, which is purely a bonehead blunder, a lie, or a delusion.
It proves he did *not* read the article and is an incompetent moron, or else he’s a strait up liar—the type of source you normally rely on Mr. Craig.
And do you want a specific example of Delingpole simply inventing straw men—and admitting they are contrivances? Here you go:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065917/mass-suicide-now-the-only-option-left-say-cancun-scientists/
The man is as crazy and dishonest as you are, Mr. Craig. Who knows? If you can learn to spell his name correctly the two of you might become fast friends—in the asylum.
Go ahead and censor me, coward. I printscreen these as soon as they go up and am saving them for when you try to lie and claim you’re not a censoring Nazi.
It was the purest fantasy and fraud from a quack non-think tank that still lists dead people as members of its faculty.
Moving along: What your quote from “Dellors” says:
“a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).”
This, Mr. Craig, is what happens when you rely on a liar and a fool for your information.
The *overall* number of responses was 3,146 among *all* the earth scientists surveyed. They *disaggregated* responses by different scientific specialties, including meteorology, climate, and others. To quote from the survey, which I read when it came out in 2009 but which you did not, because you never read, the number of respondents whose specialty was *climate specifically* was,
“. . . 79 individuals in total . . . . Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 [When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?] and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. [Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?]”
Because Delingpole (or does he preferred to be called “Dellors”; let me know when he gets back to you), like you, is illiterate and/or dishonest, he took the number of answers from Question 2 and called that the response rate of the original 10,257, which is purely a bonehead blunder, a lie, or a delusion.
It proves he did *not* read the article and is an incompetent moron, or else he’s a strait up liar—the type of source you normally rely on Mr. Craig.
And do you want a specific example of Delingpole simply inventing straw men—and admitting they are contrivances? Here you go:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065917/mass-suicide-now-the-only-option-left-say-cancun-scientists/
The man is as crazy and dishonest as you are, Mr. Craig. Who knows? If you can learn to spell his name correctly the two of you might become fast friends—in the asylum.
Go ahead and censor me, coward. I printscreen these as soon as they go up and am saving them for when you try to lie and claim you’re not a censoring Nazi.
# posted by : March 28, 2012
: March 28, 2012
Mr. "Anonymous", sadly You are the archetype of a "denier". A denier of facts. You oftimes simply resort to conjecture and ad hominem. Your "reports" are naught but hearsay, and your arguments are fatuous and indeed risible.
Simple fact checking is enough to gainsay your remarks, so I simply don't know why you bother to write in here at all. The embarrassment is all your own.
Simple fact checking is enough to gainsay your remarks, so I simply don't know why you bother to write in here at all. The embarrassment is all your own.
# posted by : March 29, 2012
: March 29, 2012
Skip I let you away with a lot against me & indeed Dellors but I am not going to let you gratuitously insult others here. If you have something factual to saythen say it.
As regards your previous comment:
Complaining that it wasn't only 77 out of over 10,000 who didn't answer the question you use as proff that "97% of scientists" support alarmism but instead 79 would be, even if it were, unusaully, in some way truthful, irrelent. In any case you, as normal, do not produce evidence.
Regarding the link:
The difference between irony and satire is that irony involves a limited exageration that people lacking intelligence or any sense of humour may take seriously. Satire is done with such a broad brush that one would have to be a complete moron with a humour lobotomy to take it seriously. Dellors' article was satire with a particularly broad brush but you claim to have taken it seriously & I must take you, as a "peer reviewed scientist piblished in the finest journals", at your word.
Which, tohether with Horace's point brings up something.
I know that a number of alarmists read this in a, so far, vain attempt to find something they can factually dispute. Skip claims to be a real scientist who has been peer reviewed and published in major journals in the catastrophic warming cause & has strong support from "scienceblogs" in making the claim. He is clearly an idiot, liar and fascist incapable of any sort of intellectual discourse. Do any of the alarmists wish to disociate themselves from such a person in any way. The only alternative is that we must accept the he does indeed represent the standard of intelligence and honesty common across the alarmist field & that they find nothing unusual about this.
As regards your previous comment:
Complaining that it wasn't only 77 out of over 10,000 who didn't answer the question you use as proff that "97% of scientists" support alarmism but instead 79 would be, even if it were, unusaully, in some way truthful, irrelent. In any case you, as normal, do not produce evidence.
Regarding the link:
The difference between irony and satire is that irony involves a limited exageration that people lacking intelligence or any sense of humour may take seriously. Satire is done with such a broad brush that one would have to be a complete moron with a humour lobotomy to take it seriously. Dellors' article was satire with a particularly broad brush but you claim to have taken it seriously & I must take you, as a "peer reviewed scientist piblished in the finest journals", at your word.
Which, tohether with Horace's point brings up something.
I know that a number of alarmists read this in a, so far, vain attempt to find something they can factually dispute. Skip claims to be a real scientist who has been peer reviewed and published in major journals in the catastrophic warming cause & has strong support from "scienceblogs" in making the claim. He is clearly an idiot, liar and fascist incapable of any sort of intellectual discourse. Do any of the alarmists wish to disociate themselves from such a person in any way. The only alternative is that we must accept the he does indeed represent the standard of intelligence and honesty common across the alarmist field & that they find nothing unusual about this.
Liar.
You censor everything that proves you wrong because that is what lying Nazis have done for all time.
Besides, who's the one who calls women "Nazi whores" if they disagree with him? You have no basis for censorship on the grounds of civility, Brown Shirt.
All I did was point out that Horace provided no evidence even as he was claiming that *I* provided no evidence.
So your response: censorship.
"Skip claims to be a real scientist who has been peer reviewed and published in major journals in the catastrophic warming cause"
Liar.
I never claimed that. Yet you repeat this *lie* over and over because that is what Joseph Goebbels, your role model, said: Utter a big lie and repeat it until the mindless sheep believe it.
Delingole (still can't get his name right, can you?) like you, never *read* the article. Which is where his idiotic only-75-out-of-10000 argument came from. There is no escaping what a fool he made of *both* of you on that score.
You, being a mindless believer in inanity, stupidly believed this fool and now the egg is all over your wrinkled face.
Go ahead and censor me some more, Joseph. It's all on record anyway. One day Neil Craig is going do some public act of stupidity even worse than running for office, and I'll have all the evidence demonstrating what a real Nazi/censor is like. Inquiring minds will want to know.
I'm watching you like a hawk, Hitlerite.
You censor everything that proves you wrong because that is what lying Nazis have done for all time.
Besides, who's the one who calls women "Nazi whores" if they disagree with him? You have no basis for censorship on the grounds of civility, Brown Shirt.
All I did was point out that Horace provided no evidence even as he was claiming that *I* provided no evidence.
So your response: censorship.
"Skip claims to be a real scientist who has been peer reviewed and published in major journals in the catastrophic warming cause"
Liar.
I never claimed that. Yet you repeat this *lie* over and over because that is what Joseph Goebbels, your role model, said: Utter a big lie and repeat it until the mindless sheep believe it.
Delingole (still can't get his name right, can you?) like you, never *read* the article. Which is where his idiotic only-75-out-of-10000 argument came from. There is no escaping what a fool he made of *both* of you on that score.
You, being a mindless believer in inanity, stupidly believed this fool and now the egg is all over your wrinkled face.
Go ahead and censor me some more, Joseph. It's all on record anyway. One day Neil Craig is going do some public act of stupidity even worse than running for office, and I'll have all the evidence demonstrating what a real Nazi/censor is like. Inquiring minds will want to know.
I'm watching you like a hawk, Hitlerite.
# posted by : March 29, 2012
: March 29, 2012
I really should have removed Skip's comment but I can't resist letting him show the standard to be expected from alarmists and climate "scientists".
This is assisted by the fact that NOBODY else in the alarmist movement disagrees with the hawkeyed one's statements.
This is assisted by the fact that NOBODY else in the alarmist movement disagrees with the hawkeyed one's statements.
HO HO, yes and once again the alarmist minions must degrade the discourse and invoke the curse of Godwin !!!
Godwin's law - see url
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Godwin's law - see url
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
# posted by : March 30, 2012
: March 30, 2012
Sure enough.
Beaten, bruised, and refuted, the Joseph Goebbels of Scotland resorts to his only recourse: censorship.
It's all on record, lying Nazi coward.
Post a Comment
Beaten, bruised, and refuted, the Joseph Goebbels of Scotland resorts to his only recourse: censorship.
It's all on record, lying Nazi coward.
# posted by : March 31, 2012
: March 31, 2012 << Home
