

Wed, 2008-03-19 12:51Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture







The basis for the current Fraser Institute booklet, ironically, is the same 1,600-page IPCC report it sought to trash a year ago. Not surprisingly, Fraser is pitching the identical message in its current diatribe -- that climate change may not be happening or, if it is happening, it may be “a good or bad thing.”





Fern Mackenzie

Perhaps they're adopting the "stash copies of the booklet in random places" strategy.

Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot



I'm also concerned at how much speculative hyperbole that passes as 'climate science' from IPCC computer models is in the public domain. Extreme weather, sea level rises, ice caps melting, droughts are all computer game assumptions that have no observational reality today.

It's hard enough for adults to disseminate the extremist propoganda spoken by climate gurus let alone the children having to swallow this crud. Leave the kids out of it ok... or else!

Wanna keep kids from being scared? Don't let them watch TV! Movies are bad enough, but sensationalized news shows focussing on random acts of violence should also be stoking your fire. What "or else" messages have you sent the networks? As for the Fraser Institute's "neutral message" and lack of observational reality: ...FI says IPCC is alarmist -- where's the observational reality of that stance?

Kids can handle far off threats better than most. We don't hide them from the fact that their grandparents die. We shouldn't hide our best understanding of the future from them; the future is where they'll spend the rest of their lives.

Johnnyb, tell me something. I've always wondered if you people with your heads in the sand, do you close your eyes too, or keep them open. Inquiring minds want to know.

Ian Forrester

Ian Forrester, if anybodies got closed minds it's the "debate is over" and "there's a consensus" crowd. The debate isn't over, it hasn't closed yet, and in fact the real reason for global warming and cooling is coming to the fore - and it ain't CO2.

As for the consensus, the IPCC total 2,500 scientists and researchers. 19,000 scientists have signed a petition against CO2 being a driver, that the Earth isn't warming at an alarming rate and that we can't do anything about climate - we're puny compared to the main drivers such as the sun and water vapour.


Johnnyb, the rubbish you are spouting isn't even new rubbish it's all been disproved a long time ago.


Ian Forrester

Ian Forester, climate science has still to be understood. I'm aware of that - are you? Nobody has explained yet precisely what drives climate but the 'possibles' are many and varied. The IPCC in 16yrs have only ever had computer models with CO2 hypothesis factored in to show CO2 as a climate driver. There is no actual proof. Fact.



The other candidates seem highly more probable.


The amount of warming (forcing) by CO2 is well understood so stop saying that there is no proof, that just shows how much of a denier you are. Most of the deniers have moved on from "CO2 has no effect". The rubbish you are posting just shows how little of the actual science you know and understand.



Ian Forrester, is that it? "..numerous lab experiments" is all you've got. CO2 when put in a test tube may well move temperture a touch but out there in the big wide world its concentrations are 0.0038% of Earths atmosphere (380 parts per million) and such a 'micro level' of Earths blanket cannot and does not drive tamperature. Methane and especially water vapour are in far higher concentrations are are far more likely to have a blanket effect.

Please point me (and the IPCC who need it) toward CO2 being a temperature driver in Earths past because you appear to be the only person who's found it!!!

"Methane [...] in far higher concentrations."

Concentration of methane: 1,745 ppb.

Concentration of CO2: 365 ppm = 365,000 ppb.


Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


There is more than a century of solid research and study on the issue of CO2 as a driver, and don't pretend you don't know it. The undercurrent of concern has been growing steading within the scientific community, even right through the so-called "predictions" of cooling in the 1970s. Even then then were more papers published in peer-reviewed journals about warming than any half-cocked op-eds about cooling. Back then, though, the general public didn't have easy access to the information as we do now. The scientists were aware, but we hadn't clued in yet.

You can't negate the physics, JohnnyB. CO2 will react in a predictable way in combination with other elements under given circumstances. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant unless you know how much it takes to cause damage. If 338ppm is safe and 339ppm is not, then you'd better be careful. It only takes one virus cell to kill an elephant, if it's the right virus.


Fern Mackenzie

Femack, regarding your "the scientists might actually know what they are doing" yes I agree. 19,000 scientists seem to know nothings going on, climate is natural and varies through cyclical changes overhwelmingly driven by the suns cycles.

Regarding CO2 being a driver or there being a 'tipping point' there's no hard evidence of either, even in the highly doctored IPCC resports. What happens in a lab or computer game simulation are merely scenarios. What happens in Earths atmosphere, which no computer simulation can simulate, is anybodies guess.




As for the IPCC reports you claim are "highly doctored," there are a few skeptical scientists, like Oerlemans and Christy, who have contributed to this effort and have agreed on the final wording of their respective chapters. If they had not agreed with this wording, their chapters would not be the way they are.


So, JohnnyB, if you wish to refute the role of CO2 on atmospheric temperature, you ought to try and refute the role of the force of gravity on the planet Earth. You'll look equally foolish doing both.

You are an insufferable bore, JohnnyB. Everytime one of you feeble-minded trolls trots out that laughable list of "19,000 leading scientists" I want to run from the room screaming. Lord knows, I try to be civil responding to these absurd claims -- but it's difficult and I feel a whole vocabulary of appropriate epithets struggling to get out!!!!!

One more time: Have a look at who is REALLY on these lists when all of the made-up names, names of people with only a passing expertise in the sciences, and the names of real scientists who didn't know they had been "signed on" are removed. Take a good, hard look at them. Then have a look at the names and qualifications of the signatories to this document: It's a warning published more than 15 years ago that pretty accurately predicts the kind of trouble we are getting ourselves into.

It's quality, not quantity, you twit. Oops. Sorry -- that just slipped out.

Fern Mackenzie

"Johnnyb, the rubbish you are spouting isn't even new rubbish it's all been disproved a long time ago"


rob, a few questions about your "subtle distinction":

Who are the 19,000 "signers" of the petition, and why can't I find a way to check their credentials? Why's there absolutely nothing to suggest that the list of 19,000 "names" wasn't simply generated by a computer program?

Why's the Global Warming Petition project so obsessed with Al Gore?

Why's the Fraser Institute using scare tactics by predicting doom and gloom for the green economy?

Is Naomi Oreskes fat?

Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


"Who are the 19,000 "signers" of the petition"

Complete list available here:

"and why can't I find a way to check their credentials?"

I don't know. Why can't you?


Because most people aren't obtuse idiots like you?

"Why's the Global Warming Petition project so obsessed with Al Gore?"

You tell me.

"Why's the Fraser Institute using scare tactics by predicting doom and gloom for the green economy?"

What "green economy"?

"Is Naomi Oreskes fat?"

Do you suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome?



500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

First they said there were 19,000 scientists.

Then it became 400 scientists.

Then 100.



Frank Bi,

Darn right, Frank! Also, if you trimmed down the list of 19,000 to include only the number of climate scientists, I'd peg your factor of 1,000 as being true.

Given that the 19,000 "signers" are mostly imaginary, we'll need to postulate imaginary climatology credentials for most of them. :)

Frank Bi,

Stephen Berg,

I don't know how many of the Oregon Petitions scientists are climatologists but 19,000 down to 1,000 could be a cruddy prediction, bit like IPCC computer models! How many of the IPCC's 2,500 scientists are Degree or PHD's in climatology do you know?

To conclude a speculation by someone else as you have done as 'true' like the IPCC does, is not good science. I've seen you haven't asked any questions about Franks maths or thoroughly peer reviewed his work. Along with your ignorant over-confidence in an undecided science you demonstrate all the credentials for being an IPCC lead author and misleading people to flawed conclusions. Integrity undermined. Well done Stephen.


19,000 scientists on the Oregon Petition against Kyoto aren't 400 scientists in the Senate Report and then 100 scientists in an Open Letter to the UN Secretary General. You appear to have left school without any maths whatsoever dim wit!

And the NY Heartland conference didn't have 19 scientists, it was 200. I think the 19 you plucked from your light head was your latest IQ reading!


Like you Mr. Martin has trouble with his maths because 200 scientists, or 19,000, don't fit in a phone box. Just a bit worrying he's so stupid and managed to be Executive Director - is this a case of jobs-for-the-boys amoung the AGW corruption crew?


The UN's Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has just come back from an Antartica 'fact-finding-mission' claiming "we must do something to protect our beautiful planet."

Strange that the UN Sec-Gen hasn't read the report his own organisation, the IPCC, have placed under his nose that states there's been no changes in Antartic temperatures, it's not melting away, in fact it's been going through normal cycles for the past 50 years.

How is it Ban Ki-Moon goes on a 'fact finding mission' and misses the facts so badly? Are his advisors mis-advising him? Were the IPCC not on hand to inform him Antartica is doing just fine? If this idiot can't find the facts when they're there in black and white at a cost of £millions in drafting and supporting science, what hope is there the UN will ever rule the planet with anything other than blind ignorance!



Precisely where am I a 'lying troll' with any fact I've said? I've warned you about making accustions you can't back up at least twice before.

You say "Antarctica is not warming up as fast as the Arctic". Please get your facts totaslly straight. Antarctica isn't warming at all (and nor has the Earth for 10 year, since 1998). Antarctica's temperature chart has been as interesting as watching paint dry for 50 years. It hasn't moved one iota since Earth peeked in 1940.


In an open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, 100 scientists from 100 countries advised "the UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction."




JohnnyB said:"The debate isn't over, it hasn't closed yet"

Like the tobacco industry, climate change deniers devote great time and energy to keeping the "debate" alive hoping that the general public will believe that the science is unsettled, thereby minimising public support for taking action to address greenhouse gas emissions.

Never mind that the "debate" is entirely manufactured by the deniers themselves. Never mind that they will grasp at any argument, no matter how tenuous or patently ridiculous to keep the "debate" alive. Never mind that for them cherry picking and distorting real data and real science, making things up out of whole cloth, and telling bald faced lies are legitimate "debating" tactics. Never mind how many times their arguments are rebutted, debunked, destroyed and utterly shredded, they will continue to use the same arguments again and again and again hoping no one notices.

"Debating" them is, like playing whack-a-mole in a memory hole, an exercise in futility.




Ignorance is not bliss, it's just....ignorance.


The recent Kolker and Hameed study in 2007 states there's many variabilities to how sea levels rise and fall, from air pressure to changes in tide, storms, volcanically induced ocean heat content variations, and in the Pacific Ocean, the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Namely it's not a simple case of warmer temperature. Their research yields a global sea level rise near 1.1 mm per year which is well below IPCC and other estimates.




Namely no polar region is melting away. Fact. Who's ignorant Exusian?

Are you referring to this paper, johnnyb?



Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


Frank Bi, re-read your 'research' as it says zilch! I suggest you read the IPCC Report. It mangles the stark conclusion in their usually obtuse language that there's been no temperature change at the Antartic - which confirms other scientists research which shows no temperature change in the Antartic in 50 years.

I realise your head may be mangled from all the ice crashing images from the news and media stations but at some point you've got to face up to the facts the scientists are seeing no temperature changes in 50yrs and ice crashes into the sea every year, and has been for milleniums. Welcome to the Earths normal ebb and flow.



You mention an unnamed paper by Monaghan et al., and when I provide a link to a paper which is by Monaghan et al. -- and I show that it doesn't conclude what you claim it concludes -- you try to change the topic by telling me to read the "IPCC Report" and throwing out a pile of bullcrap about "news and media stations".

But that's what denialism's about, isn't it? Blowing smoke all day, that's the denialist way.

Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


Frank Bi, are you reading the same report I am?





Yes, I'm reading the same paper, and the abstract -- which I quoted above -- shows that the paper does not conclude cooling.

In fact, it concludes there is a "subtle shift toward warming during the past 15 years".

So you can go shove your denialist "facts" up your orifice, thank you very much.

Of course you probably already know that your "facts" about Monaghan et al.'s conclusions are totally bogus, which is why you tried to dodge the topic by talking about something else... before I called you onto it.

Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


Frank Bi, maybe if you weren't so aggressively dumb you might cotton onto the fact that all the geological surveys in Antartica are pointing the same way on temperature.. the opposite way to which you are pointing.

Not only all the scientists but also the IPCC Reports even admit there's no changes, except the seasonal fall and rise in Antartic temperature.

I know the truth is hard to get your head round when it's buried so far up your backside! Welcome to the truth.. as you don't like to hear it.





Fill your head with some facts rather than fiction and propoganda!

... call me petty, but you're not helping your credibility here.

Sort of like when people say "nucular", or confuse "climactic" with "climatic"

Fern Mackenzie

I did.
Haven't checked the Arctic links yet, but your Antarctic references don't help your 'cause' very much. Mainly hurt it in fact.
Concerning melting South American glaciers, from "I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle."
Also from a quote from Dr Nils-Axel Morner from "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud": "In about 1970, the sea level fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something."
That's 8 inches. You would think someone else would noticed....
Of course Dr Morner is listed as an "Allied Scientist" at the NRSP which is chaired by Dr Timothy F. Ball.

There's a blank signed cheque if I ever saw one....

The Fraser Institute preaches Economic Gloom and Doom for alternative energies...

...yet we are the extremists.

Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


Frank, if anyone's full of doom and gloom it's you moaning minnies! Carbon based fuels are the most effective, efficient way of fueling the Earth and have been for nearly 100yrs. None of the alternatives have proved otherwise to date (except Nuclear - which you eco-boys are pushing us into if you haven't worked it out yet!) and until they demonstrate an ability to move 6Billion people around then I suggest you stop whinging about carbon fuels and just get on with life.


Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot


Google 'Olduvai Cliff'. Read about it on Wikipedia, then come back for a chat, please.

So, JohnnyB, you advocate lying to children in schools? That's really low. Sounds like those who wish to "teach" children Intelligent Design instead of Evolution.




Just how bad is natural gas for the climate?




read more