Yesterday I appeared on LBC discussing climate change with Ed Miliband. To listen to the discussion click this link.
Alternatively you can subscribe to Tory Radio on I-tunes to hear all my podcasts.
-
Recent Comments
Discussing Climate Change with Ed Miliband
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I agree entirely with every point that Mr Helmer has raised during this discussion.
So Roger, would you like to continue the discussion about why you accept climate science from the Spice Girls?
I hope you underdstand your comment, Phil, because it means nothing to me.
You must have missed it so I will make the point again. On the blog post you made last week (linked above), you said “30,000 scientists, 10,000 of PhD level and above, in the US have signed the Oregon Declaration”.
I demonstrated that one of the signatories of that list was the bogus Dr Geri Halliwell, a member of the Spice Girls. I was wondering if you could explain why you used the clearly bogus Oregon Declaration as a source?
He probably didn’t miss the comment – but got bored to death with the constant boring.I love how you get your “evidence” from YouTube and places like that and expect an MEP to have the time to watch and go through all your links. You must have alot of time on your hands Phil. Are your employers pleased and how much time you spend surfing the web?
hi Philip
What you have demonstrated, is that somebody, did not wish the Oregon Petition well, and so tried to sabotage it with a bogus entry. I understand there were other bogus entries. These discredit the person/people that did this, not the Petition itself. Although I feel myself the petition organisers should have made more effort to check the validaty of the signatures.
I imagine Rogers reference to the Petition, was to the valid signers, and not to the bogus, and discreditable signers, as you suggest.
So if there has been no screening of the Oregon Petition, then how many of those PhD’s are genuine and how many are climatologists? Would my brother with a BSc in Media Production be able to sign it.
The Oregon Petition is worse than the 2035 claim in IPCC AR4 WG2. At least the IPCC have acknowledged it and removed it, where you continue to perpetuate mistruths.
Note the double standard. We find that the CRU data and tha IPCC reports are riddled with errors through and through, and Ed Miliband (and no doubt Phil Burrows) dismisses it as “one or two mistakes”. The Oregon Petition has one or two mistakes, almost certainly inserted maliciously by Warmists, and is completely discredited.
Then why are these guys on it when they died before the petition was even created?
W. Kline Bolton, M.D., is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled “Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials.”
Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
Would you like me to carry on, there are plenty more where that came from on the fraudulent Oregon Petition.
Indeed there are mistakes in IPCC AR4 WG2, but that doesn’t estimate the thousands of peer reviewed articles showing that the recent warming cannot be explained by natural variation and that CO2 causes a change in climate.
The error with the IPCC WG2 is caused by the working group not following the peer review process. By cutting corners they let mistakes in.
CRU also messed up when they subverted the Peer review process.
Phil — Yes, there are scientists from un-related disciplines on the Oregon list. So what about the IPCC 2,500 scientists? Many of them are simply deep-green activists and not scientists at all. Some are economists. Many are scientists in unrelated disciplines. Pachauri is a Railway Engineer! It’s estimated that less than 100 are genuine scientists from relevant disciplines. Of these 20 to 30 are on the “Hockey Team” and are dedicated Warmist activists, steering the whole programme. Others are on the IPCC panel but reject its conclusions — I personally know three in this category.
I think you the point, they were dead, how could they have signed the petition?
They didn’t. Warmists like you maliciously signed on-line in false names, so that Warmists like you could seek to debunk the Oregon project.
mr Burrows. As already said, there are entries on the Oregon petition that should not be there. Scintists that could not, or would not have signed, celebrities unqualified to sign, and fictional characters. These entries are fraud. The question is though, who entered their names? Clearly not the petition organisers, as it can so easily be proved they are not genuine. So who then, has set out to ‘discredit’ the petition? And why would anyone do this? Petitions are an important part of a free and democratic society, to interfere with this process, is a dangerous and undesirable development.
I think the question is not ‘who tried to discredit the petition’, but ‘why was the petition so badly constructed?’. Petitions are indeed a part of free and democratic society, but it is wrong to label the petition as conducted by ‘scientists’ when anybody with a BSc (in any subject) or anybody with malicious intent can sign it.
A more relevant petition would be one that is restricted to scientists that have published on climate change in the last ten years.
Would you like me list other problems with the Oregon Petition?