Ridiculous Letter on Global Warming in the paper

[Dardedar]

DAR
I don't think I have ever read anything by Lew Rockwell that didn't contain a factually incorrect statement in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. Then I usually stop reading, unless I am looking for amusement. His stuff is so bad it is unfortunate to see anyone EVER use him as a source for anything. Especially someone interested in freethought, truth and accuracy. It is pure rightwing wank material. (I hope I am not confusing him with Rothbard).
I have a challenge. See if you can find an article by Lew, any article, that I cannot quickly and easily find a factual error, a mistatement of fact.

I doubt it.

D.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I had a little email exchange with a fellow regarding the LTE discussed in this thread.

***
> Thanks, Darrel.
>
> I would expect the liberal party line response
> on this on your site.

DAR
Paying attention to good peer-reviewed science
and backing up claims with sources is neither
liberal or conservative (or at least it shouldn't
be).
There are lots of conservative rightwing
freethinkers. Freethought has nothing to do with
being liberal or conservative.


> Try this url
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htmand and
> you will
> see that 17,000 scientists refute the 2500
> "scientists" that is
> referred to in one response... Old news!

DAR
Yes I am very familiar with the completely
discredited Oregon petition put out by the
bio-chemist Mr. Robinson. Apparently you aren't
or you would be citing it anymore. This wiki
blurb gives a very accurate and nicely summarized
list of problems with the Oregon Petition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

If you have any questions about the claims
made there let me know because I have verified
this information independently of wikipedia.

The
> scientific and historic
> evidence that climate change is a natural
> phenomenon is growing
> exponentially and more and more true scientists
> are rejecting the
> idea of man-made climate interference.

DAR
If you can cite any evidence for that claim do
feel free to post it on our forum and I will take
a look at it. You may want to familiarize
yourself with the fact that at least 99%, or
more, of scientists trained in fields specific to
climatology do not reject "the idea of man-made
climate interference." Rather, they endorse the
idea.

Naomi Oreskes of the Department of History and
Science Studies Program at the University of
California analyzed 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals on the subject of
climate change. The result? Not a single one
rejected "the idea of man-made climate
interference."

You can read the results of her test in this short article here.

That was in 2004. The concensus and the science,
has only grown stronger since then.

regards,

Darrel

[Hogeye]

Darrel needs to quit deluding himself into thinking the IPCC report is anything but political propaganda.

"The Peer Review Process
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. ...

I already debunked this in another thread, with supporting links.

The real scientists are brought in at the lowest level. The government bureaucrats rewrite and make everything politically correct for their respective governments and parties, and politically appointed hacks approve the final line by line!! See the IPCC Letter to Governments forwarding final draft. Note that the IPCC Letter to Organizations forwarding final draft explicitly admits that "Approval and acceptance of IPCC reports are at the level of governmental representatives." But real scientists are "encouraged" to send comments "for consideration" of course. Yep, the IPCC reports are political propaganda with a thin veneer of science, created and dumbed down for politicians ("policy makers"). Various participating scientists have publicly complained that their work has been bastardized and misrepresented. (The pdf links above are from this IPCC page.)

Darrel apparently thinks the scientific method is taking polls and determining "consensus," rather than observation, experimentation, making hypotheses and trying to falsify them, etc. How many discarded theories were once "consensus?" He's still harping about the Oregon petition.

Try some fact, please:

From Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, And Zachary W. Robinson.