Spindoc

<< Instead you seek to completely distort, remove context and misrepresent in order to draw attention from your own inability to respond. >>

Pot, meet kettle?

Anyway, that link you thought KenH provided in support of your claim is not correct.

Here is the appropriate link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I found my name on this "petition" last year - a practical joke by a colleague of mine in the States. Ok, it has since been removed but the fact remains - it was there.

The wording of the petition can be so easily misrepresented and distorted, and it is. You will find that the vast majority of scientists are not "alarmists", they do not think AGW will cause "catastrophic" climate change anytime soon. However, 2 degrees C warming and 0.8m sea level rise by 2100 is bad enough, don't you think?

Here is some background to the "petition".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

KenH & spindoc: good that you recast our attention to that web petition. It's been reorganized in order to make its basic petitioner detail clearer to site visitors. Nonetheless, Q&A brings out exactly the same casual dissing as last time, when the site was less clearly designed.

But here's a FAQ excerpt to give us an insight into the ethical vacuum among Q&A and friends who've apparently abused the site:

"Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists."

Therefore, the importance of the petition remains as clear proof of strong scientific dissent. As if such were needed after the petition to Ban Ki Moon, which Q&A also dissed so casually!

Now Q&A: tell us about those mysterious "feedback loops". Oh, it's way above our heads, we just couldn't grasp "the science", etc.?

Yeah. I recall an AGW cultist describing one such "feedback loop" thus: the polar caps are melting, thereby causing colder temperatures, heavier snowfalls, etc., all thus proving Global Warming! A regular genius.

Feedback fruitloops/fruitbats claim that black is white, and anyone opposing that claim must be a) too simple, or b) corrupted by the power of real industry (unlike, in their view, such clever and "essential services" as hedge fund and "carbon credit" schemes a la Fat Al Gore).

So who is Q&A? Maybe the ABC's rabid AGW fanatic Tony Jones, who dishes out that vile "Q&A' program with its commissars' groupthink rubbish?

It is interesting to look at the Vostock ice core data for the last 400yrs. See: http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

The graph shows that temperature and CO2 concentration broadly follow each other over this period. The interesting thing is the shape of the 100,000 yr cycle trends. (The driver for this cycle is changing tilt of the earth with repect to the sun.) Most of the cycle consisted of a slow cooling trend followed by a rapid rise of both CO2 and temperature. While the correlation is not exact, it suggests that the warming period is a clear example of a system reaching some "trip point" and then running away until either the sources of rising CO2 are exhausted or the strength of the tilt cycle reaches the point where the cooling stage of the tilt cycle is strong enough to stop the run away.

The rapid rise of temperature and CO2 during this warming stage suggests that a feed back cycle was established during which increased temperature increased greenhouse gas concentrations and increased greenhouse gas concentrations helped to drive up the temperature. Factors relating increased temperature to rising CO2 might have included reduced solubility of CO2 in water as temperature rises, reductions in carbon stored in vegetation and soils, oxidation of peat bogs and methane released as permafrost melted and methane hydrates decomposed.

Keep in mind that the 100,000 yr cycle is not the only cycle driving temperatures.

The trends also highlight the problems of computor simulations. It is hard to see how any simulation could accurately predict at what point the switch to rapid warming or slow cooling takes place.

The scary thing is that we lack the data to tell us what will happen to greenhouse gas levels if the temperature rises above current temperatures. We simply don't know how much extra methane might be released as temperature rises or how close we are to sudden drops in the carbon stored in places such as the Amazon and peat bogs.

“I did say I thought AGW exists, and I do. What you failed to point out,.......is that I specifically do not support Atmospheric Carbon based AGW,”

“AGW exists?” It does? It doesn’t? How come Spindoc? Have you been overdoing the stick attacks on your rear end? Must you continue berating us with such Polly waffle?

All lies and jest
from Spindoc’s jeers
is all he wants to hear
while he disregards the rest

Concerning that tired old Oregon Petition (circa 1998 and resurrected) you dredged up in desperation, where you asked for my response, could you tell me if “Redwine Ph.D” is still on the list? I recall the dearly departed Freddy Seitz too who wrote the accompanying fake cover letter (supposedly from the National Academy of Sciences), confessing it was stupid but only after he was found out. And wasn’t the Academy cranky!

And I guess $585,000 wasn’t a bad bit of “black” for head petition colluder Freddy, masquerading as an ethical scientist while stooping to consulting to big time tobacco company R J Reynolds for years - anyone for a camel? And for 28 years, a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants.

And all the while continuing to draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, founded in 1901 and subsidized with profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil.

Trust him and all the other frontline grim reapers, says Spindoc.

Sorry Spindoc, while many energy corporations accept the science on climate change and are endeavouring to mitigate their carbon emissions, everyone on the planet knows who the duplicitous toads are who try to manipulate the science - the greed merchants.

But humanity will soon sort them out and eventually they’ll be treated as pariahs and rightly so - (we all know who they are in Oz land and of their connections to the big polluters), so we really don’t need anymore of your stifling, dishonourable tirades. Go play with your stick and your bottom if you must, there’s a good boy.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/AdminLetters/miller_exxon_5.17.07.pdf

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=5

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#Journals

Q&A, I wouldn't be basing your opinions on sourcewatch, if I were you.

Sourcewatch is so obviously biased that it's laughable. Anyone on the wrong side of their political good guys-bad guys divide is ruthlessly excoriated, while the good guys are all but given a rhetorical bl*w-j*b.

Don’t be too concerned about extra methane in the atmosphere John D, Much like many thousands of chemicals, Natural and synthetic, they have a limited lifespan, and basically this is the crux of the whole Atmospheric G W; - It is the part they do not wish to know, - primarily because, the nature of Chemistry is a whole different field; People would be surprised to learn Formaldehyde is a natural occurring gas in the atmosphere – again it is in decomposition stages after 4 to 6 weeks – much like other gases far too numerous and confusing for everyone to completely understand-
So it is best to try keeping it simple.

Most of the reactions take place in the troposphere, and it is where other natural atmospheric gases react and decompose – and Change their chemical compersition - Free radicel molecules etc at work.

Many thousands of years of Volcanic explosions etc, it is a reasonable assumption , mother nature has it all in control.
I would like someone to actually find out the life of Ozone (CO3)- Now you may know.