You need to adjust your “gay” filter over there; his name is Roger F. Homosexual!

Jesus God help us all.

If there is a God, and He or She or It really created us for his myserious divine plan, then it is either a really dumb and unnecessary plan or He or She or It fucked up big time, and when He or She or It comes to take a look at what He or She or It has wrought, we will be down the disposal like overcooked pasta.

Nice going, wingnuts!

I really, really feel sorry for whatever child or children have that thing for a father.

the rough equivalent of finding a healthy, low-calorie meal on Jonah Goldberg’s dinner plate.

Salt? Bac-o-bits? While those are low calorie, they’re not exactly “healthy” are they?

he ventures out to see if his neighborhood Pressbyrån has finally started stocking Ranch-flavored Doritos and Three Musketeer candy bars.

Pffft… doesn’t he know that Socialist “paradises” such as Sweden will never sell the bountiful products of our proud You Ess of Ay?

The fact is, liberals, you are wrong and he is wright. There is no global warming. God is in control. America rules and does not need to be bullied by socialists to destroy our economy on some wacky faith based aragument. You liberals sipping lattes and chablis are the ones who are clueless, thinking Obama is going to be elected. He’s black, you losers! We’ll never vote for him!

Actually, Three Musketeers (just like Dr Pepper and KFC) failed the free-market test over here. They’ve been introduced and rejected. Doritos are currently in the process of seeing if they’ll stick, but I don’t think they’ll last too long.

What’s a chabli?

Thank you for reading that shit so I don’t have to. Whenever I click on the original article, my brain starts to feel all mushy. Since I’m killing several brain cells every day with merlot, I have to protect the rest of them.

I am assuming that Gary Ruppert, with the mask off, is engaging in industrial-strength sarcasm, right?

The fact is, liberals, you are wrong and he is wright.

Orville, Wilbur or Frank Lloyd?

[…] Wingnut of the Week: Roger F. Gay tremayne wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFinally we would be remiss if we […]

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” threatens death to children and all around them if they do not immediately join the cult.

Could he be confusing AIT with that South Park episode where the Earth Day people threaten to kill the boys?

You also gotta love the compassionate conservatives who find super secret threats to children in movies but will kick and scream if you suggest that maybe daddy should pay to feed his kiddies.

After a brief troll through the internons Gay’s views can be summed up as follows:

Divorce is bad.
Gay marriage is bad.*
Anything that might possibly be a detriment to men is bad.
Anything that might possibly be a benefit to divorced women is bad.
Waaah!

*Not GAY’S marriage. I can’t tell if he was ever married.

I thought I might mention on this thread that there is a column in The Australian mathematically disproving the existence of anthropogenic global warming. I think it’s outrageous that said column is ignored by Sadly,No!

Here’s a mathematical proof that global warming is not caused by human activity.

Proposition: Global warming is not caused by human activity.

Proof: By contradiction. Assume global warming was anthropogenic. Then Al Gore would be correct. Since is is well-known that Al Gore is a habitual liar (see [Dowd98] [Dowd99] [Dowd2000] [Rich99] [Rich2000] [Seeley et al. 99/2000]) this leads to a contradiction. QED.

[…] tremayne wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFinally we would be remiss if we didn’t point out this nugget in a column by Gay entitled “Is Hillary Clinton Abusing YouTube?“:. One of the greatest offenses a political candidate can perpetrate is abuse of the internet [sic]. … Read the rest of this great post here […]

No matter how intense my curiosity might be regarding the threat al gore poses to the lives of innocent children, it’s a lovely sunday morning and I’m simply not gonna go over to that sewer and read this idiot’s drool and spew.

I’ll simply assume that, because he’s almost as fat as michael moore, the theat al gore poses to children is he might accidentally sit on them?

Also, allow me to suggest that a mathematical proof of anthropogenic global warming might be referred to as an al gore-ithm…

mikey

allow me to suggest that a mathematical proof of anthropogenic global warming might be referred to as an al gore-ithm…

BWAHA! Haaa hahahahahaha!

(wipes tear from eye)

[…] on New Wingnut of the Week: Roger F. Gay by test » Blog … camille424 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpttremayne wrote an interesting post […]

He may be a nut but he has FABULOUS taste in hats.

The fact is, there is no global warming. You liberals and leftist one-worlders want there to be, but there isn’t. You have no facts, or logic, only bias and anti-USA-ism. We, who deal in realities, have the proof we need and do not believe your unscientific lies. And Al Gore is fat.

“when its influence is used to foster ignorance, poverty, and war, the world should pay attention and respond”

They must be stopped! Everybody knows the ignorance, poverty and war franchise belongs to Republicans.

I don’t want to be a nitpicker and I’m not terribly certain of my ground when it comes to glorious international awards–but isn’t the Nobel Prize determined by the SWEDISH Nobel Committee? I mean, they always hold the awards ceremony in Stockholm, not Oslo. I’m sure there’s a good reason for that.

It surprises me that the wits at Sadly, No didn’t spot that gaffe and pounce on it for the lede. When the wingnuttery serves up such a fat pitch, you folks usually hammer it out of the park.

Norway and Sweden are not separate countries. It’s two different names for the same country, like the Netherlands and Dutchmark.

Liberals. Hmf.

Also, allow me to suggest that a mathematical proof of anthropogenic global warming might be referred to as an al gore-ithm…

mikey

That’s one embedded in my head now…

“Last week there were reports that an Al Gore Death Squad abducted three children from a home in Indianapolis and shot them in ditch outside town. Only one of the three questioned global warming; the crime of the other two was simply being in the house for a sleepover when the Gore death squads arrived.”

But don’t expect to find it reported in the MSM!

The Peace Price is awarded in Oslo, by (a proxy for) the Norwegian parliament. See the wikipedia entry for details.

Norway and Sweden are not separate countries.
Precisely. They are all part of Greater Denmark.

The fact is, the liberal Ferdinand Magellan is fated to fall off the edge of the Earth if he sails too far, in defiance of God. If he does not, surely the Moorofacists he encounters in the world will put him under Shania law. He and his so-called explorer kind will face almighty retribution from the laws of the Inquisition if they bring the plague of Moorofacism, Frenchmen and Renasance thinking to Spain. God save King Charles V.

The fact is, there is no such thing as a heliocentric universe. You liberals and leftist Renasancers want there to be, but there isn’t. You have no facts, or logic, only bias and anti-God-ism. We, who deal in realities, have the proof we need and do not believe your unscientific lies. And Nicolaus Copernicus is fat.

The fact is, liberals, you are wrong and he is wright. There is no round earth. God, and his holy representative King Charles V is in control. Spain rules and does not need to be bullied by Renasancers to destroy our economy on some wacky faith based aragument. You heathens sipping sangria and conac are the ones who are clueless, thinking King Charles is going to abdicate someday. He’s a Hapsburg, you losers! We’ll never give up on him!

I call Fake Gary 1519!

the fact is, the pharaoh tut is the one true face of RA on earth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and should be stoned to death in front of his children, who should be forced to eat his entrails before they are immolated. also, hatsheput the geographer who claims the nile grows larger in the south, the apostate vermin, is fat.

It’s interesting to know there’s no sanity test for emigrating to Sweden.

But, on a serious note, being a wingnut living in Sweden must be infuriating – it’s no wonder this Gay guy seems as bitter as denatonium benzoate (yeah, I googled it). The farthest rightist party here is essentially analogous to the US Democrats, so you’ve either got to get in bed with Hillaryhuggers or with Nazis if you want to do right-right politics here.

So, what is he doing here? I’llbet you it’s like most bitter American guys I know here; met hot Swedish blond, got her pregnant and now they have to stay for the kid even though they hate everything from the climate to the food.

Either that, or that or he’s fallen for that inimitable Swedish pizza.

Bitter Scribe said,

July 20, 2008 at 18:41

The fact is, liberals, you are wrong and he is wright.

Orville, Wilbur or Frank Lloyd?

Ha ha ha, silly liberal–it was Jeremiah!

denatonium benzoate! I know what that tastes like! woo!

Mr Gay has an exe to grind with the father’s right thing, doesn’t he? He wants to put the whole decision process for child support and visitation into software. Garbage in, garbage out, indeed.

I wonder what motivates him in his quest. A keen sense of social justice? Or . . .

“It’s interesting to know there’s no sanity test for emigrating to Sweden.”

Obviously not. Otherwise they would have a shortage of Saab engineers.

The fact is, “Gary Rupert Through the Centuries” has made me spit bits of muffin out my nasal passages and forced me to call my old world history porf to compel him to view these goings on. FSM you guys make me laugh.

A wingnut, in Sweden?!!
Must really shrivel his ‘nads to know he’s helping fund a whole big slew of social-democrat safety-net programs every time he pays a bill or buys something … unless he lives outside of town in a yurt & has Mommy send him weekly care-packages … I call that industrial-strength masochism.

Yowza – “Al-Gore-rithm” is all-killer, no-filler, mikey.

JET said,

July 21, 2008 at 0:45

So, what is he doing here? I’llbet you it’s like most bitter American guys I know here; met hot Swedish blond, got her pregnant and now they have to stay for the kid even though they hate everything from the climate to the food.

Either that, or that or he’s fallen for that inimitable Swedish pizza.

Swedish pizza… LOL.

Also, allow me to suggest that a mathematical proof of anthropogenic global warming might be referred to as an al gore-ithm…

Oh, Mikey, this little maths geek loves you for that one.

You say: “is one of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration along with the 600 other ’scientists’ whose only experience in climatology was apparently limited to learning how to operate an umbrella.”

You haven’t looked at their credential very well. Roger is on a list entitled “The following individuals, all well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy, have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change:”

On the list of climate and related experts (another list), we include:

1. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
2. William J. R. Alexander, PrEng, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering, South Africa
3. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, Physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
4. John W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD (Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama, U.S.A.
5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor – University of Winnipeg, Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
6. Gregory J. Balle, B.E., MSc., PhD. (Joint Aerospace Engineering and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics), Pukekohe, New Zealand
7. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
8. Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
9. Matthew Bastardi, BSc (Meteorology, Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.
10. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Dept. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science, Merian-Schule, Freiburg, Germany
11. David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
12. Andre Bernier, Meteorologist, WJW-TV, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
13. Sally Bernier, Meteorologist, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
14. M.I. Bhat, Professor (Tectonics, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir), Sprinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
15. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
16. Frederick Bopp, PhD (Geology), Environmental Consulting, Owner, Earth Quest, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. U.S.A.
17. William M. Briggs, PhD., Statistical Consultant (specializing in accuracy of forecasts and climate variability), U.S.A.
18. James Brooks, BS, PhD, Geophysics, Adelaide, Australia
19. John W. Brosnahan, Vanderpool, Texas, U.S.A., Research Physicist (Atmospheric Remote Sensing), atmospheric science consultant, founder of Signal Hill Research, LLC., former President of Alpha/Power, Inc., founder of LaSalle Research Inc., founder of Tycho Technology Inc.
20. Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
21. Stephen Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A.
22. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
23. James Buckee, PhD (astrophysics), Calgary, Alberta, Canada
24. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
25. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
26. George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
27. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
28. James Clarke, BS (Meteorology), TV-Meteorologist, WZVN-TV, Ft. Myers, Florida, U.S.A.
29. Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
30. Michael Clover, PhD (experimental nuclear physics); Computer Simulation, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corp., San Diego, California, U.S.A.
31. Michael Coffman, PhD, (ecosysytems analysis and climate change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.
32. John Coleman, Founder, The Weather Channel, Weather Anchor, KUSI-TV, San Diego, California, U.S.A.
33. Martin Coniglio, Meteorologist, KUSA-TV, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
34. Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
35. Piers Corbyn, ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, owner of Weather Action long range forecasters, degree in Physics (Imperial College London), England
36. Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
37. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
38. Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
39. Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
40. Joseph D’Aleo, MS, BS (University of Wisconsin) Meteorologist and Climatologist (retired), Executive Director, ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
41. Dalcio K. Dacol, PhD (physics, University of California at Berkeley), physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
42. Dave Dahl, BSc (Meteorology, Florida State University), Chief Meteorologist, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS/KSTP-TV, Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
43. Willem De Lange, PhD, MSc (Hons), Dphil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
44. James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas, Geography, Climate, Environmental Science), retired University Professor, now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
45. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
46. David Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, U.S.A.
47. Robert Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A..
48. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
49. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
50. Per Engene, PhD, Biologist, Valenvegen, Norway
51. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
52. David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak’, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
53. Donald W. Farley, P.Eng, M.Eng. (Water Resources Engineering & Hydrology), Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
54. Robert Jacomb Foster, BE (Adelaide University), palaeoclimatologist and energy economist, Director Lavoisier Group; past Councillor Royal Society of Victoria and Victorian Institute of Marine Science, Melbourne, Australia
55. Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
56. Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
57. Rigoberto Garcia, MC, Climate Change and Urban Sustainability, Doctorate Student, El Colegio de México, México City, DF, México
58. Edgar Gärtner, Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies (DEA, en Ecologie appliquée, Redaktionsbüro), Frankfurt am Main, Germany
59. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
60. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, INTTAS, Asunción, Paraguay
61. Indur M. Goklany, PhD (Electrical Eng, Michigan State University), climate policy analyst, Vienna, Virginia, U.S.A.
62. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mechanical Engineering), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst, Stockholm, Sweden
63. Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
64. Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
65. David Gray, PhD (EE Stanford U., Electromagnetic Wave Transmission (in Atmosphere, and fiber)), Asst Professor of Engineering, Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
66. Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
67. Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
68. William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
69. Charles Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modelling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
70. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, U.S.A.
71. Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
72. D. Hebert, PhD, Faculty for Chemistry and Physics, Institut fur Angewandte Physik, Freiberg, Germany
73. Hug Hienz, PhD, (Chemistry, University of Mainz, Germany), former Professor of Organic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry, Germany
74. Ted Hinds, BS (Engineering Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), PhD (Physical Ecology, U. Washington, Seattle), Quantitative empirical analyses regarding climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses, consultant for USA EPA research on global climate change program. Senior Research Scientist, retired, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, U.S.A.
75. Art Horn, Meteorologist (honors, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, Vermont), operator, The Art of Weather, U.S.A.
76. Warwick S. Hughes, MSc Hon. (University of Auckland, New Zealand), geologist (retired), Canberra, Australia
77. Ole Humlum, PhD, Physical Geography, Professor, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
78. Steve Hynek, BS (Meteorology), Air Quality Analyst, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
79. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
80. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
81. Albert F. Jacobs, MS, P. Geology, retired geologist, co-founder Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
82. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Senior Science Advisor of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
83. Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
84. Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist for Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
85. Wibjörn Karlén, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
86. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD (Organic Chemistry, M.I.T.), Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
87. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
88. Harald Kehl, PD Dr. rer. nat., Ecosystem Analysis, Lecturer, Researcher, Berlin, Germany
89. Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor “Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
90. William Kininmonth, MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
91. R.W.J. Kouffeld, PhD, Emeritus Professor – Energy Conversion, Technical University Delft, Driebergen, The Netherlands
92. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Meteorology), Theoretical Meteorology, Research Faculty, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
93. Olav M. Kvalheim, Professor, Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
94. Rune B. Larsen, PhD (Geology, Geochemistry), Associate Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
95. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President – Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
96. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, U.S.A.
97. Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
98. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, France
99. Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer (power), Secretary – International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand
100. Edward Liebsch, MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), BA (Earth Science & Chemistry, St. Cloud State University), Air Quality, Meteorology, Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A.
101. William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting Geologist and Company Director, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.
102. Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
103. Endel Lippmaa, Prof.Dr.habil (Physics, Chemistry), Chairman – Energy Council of the Estonian Academy of Science, Tallinn, Estonia
104. Keith Lockitch, PhD (Physics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Science and Environmental Policy, Resident Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute, Irvine, California, U.S.A.
105. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
106. Richard Mackey, Statistician, author of papers about the role of the Sun in the Earth’s climate dynamics and biographer of Rhodes W. Fairbridge, Canberra, Australia
107. Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
108. Björn Malmgren, PhD, University Professor, Paleoclimate Science, retired, Lerum, Sweden
109. Jennifer Marohasy, BSc, PhD, Biologist, Writer, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Director, Australian Environment Foundation, Sydney, Australia
110. Les McDonald, RP Bio; Senior Impact Assessment Biologist, BC Environmental Protection (retired); Consulting Aquatic Biologist, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada
111. Alister McFarquhar, PhD (international economy, Downing College), Cambridge, United Kingdom
112. John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, Post-graduate Diploma of Computer Studies, B. Arch., Climate Data Analyst, Computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia
113. Rob Meleon, PhD, biochemist, CSO Pepscan, Lelystad, The Netherlands
114. Amos Meyer, Theoretical Physics, Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Modeling, Chief Scientist, Westport, Connecticut, U.S.A.
115. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
116. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
117. Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
118. H. Michael “Mike” Mogil, Certified Consulting Meteorologist (three decades with NOAA), weather educator and science writer, How the Weatherworks, Naples, Florida, U.S.A.
119. Michael Monce, PhD (Physics), Atomic/Molecular, Energy and Environment, Professor of Physics, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, U.S.A.
120. M. R. Morgan, PhD, Cdr., FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K., now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
121. Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
122. Luboš Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
123. Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
124. John Nicol, BSc (University of Queensland), PhD (James Cook University); Radio Physics and High Resolution Optical Spectroscopy, former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; now residing in Brisbane, Australia
125. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
126. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
127. Peter Oliver, BS, MS, PhD, FGA, Geology, Geochemistry, Paleomagnetism, Research Scientist, retired, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
128. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia
129. Curtis Osgood, BS (Meteorology, Lyndon State College), Consulting Meteorologist, Forecaster/Consultant, Granby, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
130. Pat Palmer, MAgrSc (agronomy), pollution control expert (sources and effects on health), retired from Crop Research Division, DSIR, Christchurch, New Zealand
131. Donald Parkes, PhD, BA (Hons), MA, retired Professor Human Ecology, Australia and Japan
132. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor & Director, Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair – International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
133. James A. Peden, Atmospheric Physicist, webmaster Middlebury Networks, Vermont, U.S.A.
134. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
135. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
136. Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
137. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
138. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
139. George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
140. Henriques Renato, PhD, Geology, Auxiliary Professor, University of Minho, Braga, Braga, Portugal
141. Art Robinson, PhD (Chemistry), founder and Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon, U.S.A.
142. Robert G. Roper, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
143. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
144. Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
145. Robert Roseman, Meteorology & Climatology, TV Meteorologist, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
146. Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant – Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
147. Clive Schaupmeyer, M.Sc., P.Ag. , Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
148. Chris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology), PhD (Geology), retired Exploration Geologist and Geophysicist, Australia and France
149. Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A. .
150. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
151. Milos Setek, Meteorologist/Statistician, Senior Scientist, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia
152. John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, United Kingdom
153. Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
154. Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in energy sciences, notably renewable energy, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
155. Vedat Shehu, Prof. Dr. Eng., Geologist, Engineering Geology, Tectonics, Geoingineering, Sharon, Massachusetts, U.S.A. and Professor “Geoingineering Research Unit” in Tirana, Albania
156. Richard F. Shepherd, ARCS (Mathematics), PhD, DIC (high energy physics), FIMA (numerical analysis), FBCS (director of computing centre, retired), Pembroke, United Kingdom
157. Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
158. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
159. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor in Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
160. Oleg G. Sorokhtin, PhD, Director of Ocean Laboratory, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
161. Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
162. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
163. T. J. (“Jim”) Sprott, PhD, OBE, MSc, FNZIC, consulting chemist, forensic scientist, Auckland, New Zealand
164. Walter Starck, PhD (marine science), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries with 1000 dives from northern Cape York to the Capricorn group), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
165. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
166. Wojciech J. Szalecki, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Senior Scientist, formerly University of Lodz, Poland, and University of Colorado, now in Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.
167. Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
168. George H. Taylor, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), Past President, American Association of State Climatologists, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
169. Malcolm Taylor, Dip ES (Climatology and Hydrology specialization), Power Systems Analyst, Otago, New Zealand
170. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Dwingeloo, The Netherlands
171. Wolfgang Thüne, PhD, Dipl.-Met., Senior Meteorologist and Sociologist, Oppenheim, Germany
172. Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), currently teacher of Environmental Protection Engineering and Organic Chemistry at University in Växjö; Falsterbo, Sweden
173. Brian G. Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park, Dept. of Energy, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
174. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
175. Roderick W. Van Koughnet, BS (Geology), MS (Geology (Geophysics), Wright State University), Senior Geoscientist, L&M Petroleum, Wellington, New Zealand
176. Gösta Walin, Professor, i oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
177. Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Electronic Properties of Materials, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
178. Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestation s.org, Chico, California, U.S.A.
179. Gerd-Rainer Weber, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist, Essen, Germany
180. Jack Wedel, BS (Geography), Arctic Hydrology, retired, Environment Canada, Keewatin, Ontario, Canada
181. Forese-Carlo Wezel, Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
182. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
183. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
184. Arnold Woodruff, M.Sc. (Atmospheric Physics, U.C.W.Aberystwyth), B.Sc. (Physics, Durham), Terrestrial & Spaceborne Exploration Geophysics, Consultant Geophysicist, Woodruff Exploration & Production Ltd., Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, U.K.
185. Chris Yakymyshyn, PhD, MS, BS (EE/Physics), Instrumentation, Vice President Technology, Field Metrics Inc., Seminole, Florida, U.S.A.
186. Roger Young, BS, MS, D.I.C. F.G.S., Geophysics, Geophysical Consultant, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England
187. Josef Zboril, MSc. (Chemistry), Board Member, Confederation of Industry, Prague, Czech Republic
188. A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

A ton of people with B.A. degrees in meteorology or weather science. But of course weather and climate are not at all the same thing, and exprtise in the first does not imply any grasp of the second. At least six “organic chemists,” who might be synthetic chemists, organometallic chemists, biochemists, who the hell knows? There are a lot of geologists and geophysiscists who may or may not know anything about climatology in general, or climate change in particular.A lot of them are obviously petroleum geologists, at that, with obvious vested interests. There are a bunch of physicists who may or may not know anythig about climatology in general or climate change in particular.

Etc., etc.

Taking advice on climate change from most of the folks on this list is analogous to having your open heart surgery performed by a psychiatrist. After all, they’re both M.D.’s, right? And what could *possibly* go wrong, anyway?

P.s. to Tom: are you a crank, a whore, or just a cranky whore? Please advise.

P.p.s. — how many of the people with actual (apparent) qualifications get their paychecks from the oil, gas, coal, or automotive industries, or are employed by “think” tanks funded by these industries?

Full disclusure, s’il vous plait.

P.p.p.s. — how many peer-reviewed papers have the signers published, over the last two decades, on topics *directly* relevant to climate change and global warming?

P.p.p.s. — of those papers, how many provide *direct* evidence against claims in the IPCC report, and of *those*, how many have withstood subsequent review and scrutiny?

“It’s interesting to know there’s no sanity test for emigrating to Sweden.”

That is correct. There is no sanity clause.

Oh George, don’t you want experts in climate change policy-making making your climate change policy? Sure, they may not know squat about the science but they’re well-trained in making policy!

If the guy can, in fact, operate an umbrella, why is he walking around Stockholm covered in snowball splatter?

(Enquiring minds and all that.)

With a posting “P.s. to Tom: are you a crank, a whore, or just a cranky whore? Please advise.”, Mr. Smiley loses the chances of any reply at all to his inquiries. It simply is not worth the time to correspond with someone who behaves so.

You just DID reply, Tom. The “chance” (probability) of a reply is therefore 1 (unity). The probability that you are a jackass also approaches unity.

Also, “Matthew Bastardi” is obviously a made-up name.

P.p.p.p.p.s. to Tom: Unlike you, I am actually a professional scientist. I publish regularly in the top peer-reviewed journals in my field (which is not climatology), and I can in good conscience say that I have given you all due respect (with emphasis on the “due” part).

By the way, you can direct any further responses here:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I would like to share my love story with you as both of us are like-minded person. Yes, I am bisexual. I was just very puzzled by if i am a bisexul. and also a little shy. dare not to have a try. You may understand my feeling. So I just come to the net first. and went to try ?####?BIGBISEXUAL.C O M?####. Later I met the charming bisexual girl. I just let her know my problem. At fisrt I just regard it as a trend. But she told me j:”ust face yourself, you do know what can make you really happy. that’s your real feeling. Let alone others opinion on you, It’s your own life. We don’t try to hurt anybody, right”. thus, I found real me. She let me know the second life of bisexuall, give me the hot and mature kiss which it can’t works for straight people do. The more I experice with her, I more aspect of bi life i can explore. So right now, i think it’s not bad to be bisexul

Dr. George Smiley (and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt about his academic credentials, which I assume include a PhD – what field is your doctorate in Dr. Smiley?) provides an excellent example of why this debate has degenerated into mudslinging. Read over his little (and not so little) personal and professional insults and imagine how the dialog would go if I was like some on our side of the debate who would fight fire with fire.

Thanks for providing this illustration Dr. Smiley.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris

Tom, your list of mostly unqualified people taking issue with a scientific consensus is by its nature deceptive. It is clearly targeted not at scientists, but at people who *don’t* know the difference between, for example, weather and climate.

It is propagandistic garbage.

As such, it does not merit a reasoned or civil response. It deserves the same response as any other piece of dishonest propaganda: mockery and scorn.

One more thing. I wish to reiterate that, like many of the people on Tom’s list, I am not a climate scientist (I am a molecular biologist, and yes, I hold both a doctorate and a faculty position in a hard science department a major (Carnegie-R1) university).

Again: both psychiatrists and cardiac surgeons are doctors who have M.D. degrees. Would you hand the typical psychiatrist a scalpel and a sternum spreader, and invite him to go to town in your chest cavity? This is what Tom is asking you to do. Like many on Tom’s list of “climate and related experts,” I lack competence in the field of climate change science. Because I lack that relevant expertise, I defer to the consensus of actual experts in the field. I defer to those who *do* posess the relevant expertise.

I do, however, know enough about the general *practice* of science to say without any reservations at all that Tom’s project is political propaganda and not scientific debate. The venue is inappropriate, the format is inappropriate, and way too many of the participants/signatories are obvious amateurs and dilettantes.

The Great Global Warming Swindle: Alarmists Lose Another Round in Ofcom Ruling

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/22/the-great-global-warming-swindle-alarmists-lose-another-round-in-ofcom-ruling/

P.S. Thanks for the picture with the sci-fi looking hat. It’s kinda reminiscient of Doctor Who. (I’m a big fan.) I’ve saved a copy. Getting loads of laughter and applause.

P.P.S. Although there are no comments re: family policy here that show any serious interest, there are people who are seriously interested in pretty much any crowd on the planet. For those of you interested in family policy in the US, you might want to check out the roundtable discussion held in 2003. The four participants represent a range of views:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/roundtable/roundtable.htm

P.P.P.S. I have enough experience in the GW debate to understand that most of you here define “qualified scientist” as anyone who agrees with your orthodoxy. That gives the false view of “consensus” (a la Al Gore). I certainly agree with your detractors – makes you look stupid.

P.P.P.P.S. My listing in the Manhattan Declaration endorsements is accurate and correctly catagorized.

The idiot jackass fuckup shithead Roger F. Gay actually thinks that “mensnewsdaily.com” is a go-to venue for the “debate” on climate change. Not, say, Science, or Nature, or one of the good specialist journals in the, you know, fucking field of climatology. How stupid can one human being be? Roger F. Gay is attempting to provide an answer!

“I have enough experience in the GW debate”

Who gives a shit? What has Roger F. Gay published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change. My guess: exactly as much as *I* have. What that means: his opinion means jack shit. His “experience” has exactly as much relevance to the “debate” on climate change as my “experience” watching pro football on TV has on the outcome of next year’s AFC playoffs, i.e., his “experience” has no relevance whatsoever to the actual subject.

“…to understand that most of you here define “qualified scientist” as anyone who agrees with your orthodoxy. That gives the false view of “consensus” (a la Al Gore). I certainly agree with your detractors – makes you look stupid.”

To say that Roger F. Gay is a drooling retard is an insult to drooling retards the world over. We define a “qualified scientist” in a given field as someone who actually CONTRIBUTES REGULARLY (and, preferably, RECENTLY) to the RELEVANT PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE IN THAT FIELD. Holy shit, Roger F. Gay is a stupid fucker. It’s a small wonder that this jackass learned how to breathe.

P.S. to Roger F. Gay: Apparently, Gore recently issued a statement reading, in part: “I urge Roger F. Gay in the strongest terms not to gouge out his own eyes with a spork.”

Do what what you gotta do, Roger.

The Great Global Warming Swindle: Alarmists Lose Another Round in Ofcom Ruling

Hey, Roger. Why didn’t you provide a link to the report itself by the OFcom in your article? Wouldn’t that be standard procedure?

Is it because you knew that while the report says that the program “did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offense” (emphasis mine), it only did so because it said “The Great Global Warming Swindle was clearly identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic of some of Channel 4’s output”. And because the ideas presented in it were so fringy and AGW so well established as scientific consensus that the polemic in question was really no threat at all to matters of public policy (hence the qualifier “,,,so as to cause harm or offense”)? Did you even read the report? If you did, carefully, you’d understand that the report was highly legalistic in finding Channel 4 not guilty but still dismissive of the program’s merits. I think you did read it and you wrote a very dishonest column about it but I’ll hold out the possibility that you just didn’t get it. Which is it? Because anyone who reads the report and your article about it would have to conclude you are not a reliable source. I’m going to have to assume that the same goes for your reporting on family matters.

P.S. the NYT covered this story yesterday. It’s not a very detailed article but it does get the gist of the report basically right and it includes some criticism of the finding by actual scientists. Unlike Roger they were not afraid to link to the report so that their readers could see for themselves whether or not their reporting was accurate.

WTF? WordPress ate my link. Let me try again.

British Film on Global Warming Draws Rebuke

…actually thinks that “mensnewsdaily.com” is a go-to venue for the “debate” on climate change.

MND is as qualified to issue opinions as Sadlyno. Or did you imagine you were posting to Nature?

[Clif adds: Oh, Mike, honey, you poor thing, didn’t you realize that SadlyNo! doesn’t “issue opinions” on climate change or anything else? All we do is ridicule and parody silly things said by right wingers and post funny little photoshops of them to underline that ridicule. You probably didn’t really want to say, then, that MND is “as qualified” as S,N! is to issue opinions since that would be, more or less, a tacit admission that MND isn’t qualified at all either. But that’s okay — you and your little buddies can keep playing climate science with your chemistry sets and lab coats, and we’ll drop by every now and then to point fingers and laugh.]

MND is as qualified to issue opinions as Sadlyno. Or did you imagine you were posting to Nature?

WTF do “opinions” have to do with science?

So you’re the editor of that mess of a site? Why don’t your reporters link to their original sources like the front pagers do around here and at Nature. And guess what, Mike? Nature has a web site, believe it or not. Since you seem to be implying that they’re an authority on the subject, why not go over there and browse through their climate section and see if you can figure out which way they lean on the question of AGW? Then come on back and report back on your findings.

Mike LaSalle: “MND is as qualified to issue opinions as Sadlyno.”

That was precisely my point, you little spit-hose. On scientific matters, I defer to actual experts who actually work in the relevant subfields and actually publish in the relevant peer-reviewed journals.

I turn to SadlyNo! for the best in 1337 mockery, scorn, and pwnage.

“Or did you imagine you were posting to Nature?”

I don’t *post* at Nature. I *publish* there.

Granted, this fellow is indeed a wingnut (and an untightened one at that), but his egregious error, giving Norway responsibility for the Nobel prizes, was partcularly painful.

Everyone knows that Norway (along with Sweden and Denmark) are minor provinces of Iceland. The real power rests in Reykjavik!

“Professor” Smiley’s choice of language is not that of a professional. It is one of an amateur mudslinger who’s command of the English language is so weak that he must resort to continuous obscenities to attempt to express himself. If you expect us to believe that you are really hold “a doctorate and a faculty position in a hard science department a major (Carnegie-R1) university”, then show us your faculty Web site.

Nice try, Tom. My professional life and my life as a political hack are separate, not unified as in your case.

“…an amateur mudslinger who’s [sic] command of the English language is so weak…”

Awesome.

If your “professional life and [your] life as a political hack are separate”, then why do you bring up your professional credentials in your political hack activities on this Web site? If they are separate, you should be able to defend your political hack activities without claiming the authority of your professional position, which you do. I don’t see why anyone should believe you when you say you “hold “a doctorate and a faculty position in a hard science department a major (Carnegie-R1) university” if you won’t prove it by simply showing us your university Web site.

University professionals don’t speak like you do. I imagine you are simply a “political hack” like so many who are trying to frighten those who disagree with them by citing bogus credentials. Roger and I tell you exactly who we are, and exactly what our credentials are, since we are not ashamed of our activities – are you ashamed of your activities? Sounds like it, “Professor” Smiley. Or are you afraid your boss at the university might find out how you behave in public?

University professionals don’t speak like you do.

Can they use “whose” properly? I need to know.

If you don’t take me seriously, Tom, then why are you typing so many words directed at me?

So that others won’t take you seriously. I already suspected you are not what you claim to be, and you have done nothing but support that suspicion by your adolescent behavior – thanks. I imagine others are seeing through your bully-boy tactics as well now.

I’ll say it again, for at least the third time in this thread, Tom. My lack of expertise, and yours – not my credentials – are exactly the point.

Like you, I am not a climatologist. Like you and so many of the “experts” on your list, I am not capable of evaluating the relevant science on climate change.

Unlike you, I am smart enough to know when I am out of my depth on a highly technical subject. That is *precisely* why I defer to the consensus of the field.

Let me reiterate: I am not making an argument from authority. I am pointing out that I’m not an authority, and neither are you, and neither are a large fraction of the people on your list.

Your list is a sham. It has nothing to do with science as practiced by working scientists, and whether *I* use cuss words or the prettiest English you ever saw, *you* cannot change that reality. That must really hurt.

You can assert that a consensus in the field exists but, if you are a real scientist (which I doubt as you have yet to show evidence to support your supposed professorial credentials) that you can’t expect anyone to believe you unless you can provide convincing evidence to support your belief – so prove it. Show us a representative poll of world scientists in the field who support your point of view that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis.

Tom prattles: “Show us a representative poll of world scientists in the field who support your point of view that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis.”

Tom is, incroorectly, suggesting that I have a “point of view” that I do not have. I *defer to* the consensus of scientists in the relevant fields, who apparently *do* have informed opinions on the matter.

My opinion is that I should trust scientists who have dedicated their careers to this subject *more* than I trust my own, uninformed, suspicions or intuitions. THAT is my point of view: I trust scientists, and the scientific process. It is not a perfect process, but it is the best process ever devised for discovering how the world works.

Is there total consensus? If there was I would be shocked, because scientists are by nature a contentious bunch. We LOVE showing that our colleagues are wrong. But I certainly cannot remember any consensus *this* broad on any complex issue that I *do* know about. Here’s one list (I asked the Great Gazoogle):

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

1 Statements by concurring organizations
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association

[Then there are the dissenters… and they are not even really dissenting]:

2 Noncommittal statements
2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Ted, meanwhile, offers a list of 188 “climate and related experts” that includes some real climate scientists, a bunch of guys who look like they used to be pretty good but are in their dotage, a bunch of TV weather guys, an “energy consultant” at a tannery in Virginia, and a number of people who appear to be… wait for it… petroleum geologists.

Did I write “Ted?” Sadly, I meant “Tom.”

And with that, I think I will withdraw from this thread. There is a great deal of mockery waiting to be inflicted elsewhere.

Good grief, and he calls himself a “scientist”. If “Professor” Smiley “trusts scientists, and the scientific process” then why would he cite Wikipedia as a source for anything serious? Wiki is about the most biased and inaccurate (anyone can edit it) source of info on climate change you could possibly cite (didn’t you see Larry Solomon’s exposez on their climate science gremlins?). And the fact that the bureaucrats that run the administrations of these different scientific organizations issued statements to support climate hysteria means nothing. In Canada and Russia, for example, they didn’t even consult their own climate experts (in Russia, it led to a scandle; in Canada, they didn’t even consult scientists at all, even their own Science Academy). Of the organizations that have issued statements supporting AGW theory, how many actually polled their members before issuing such statements and released the percentage who agreed with it? ZERO. Not at all.

I asked for a poll of working scientists in the field, not a list of official statements from bureaucracies. If “Professor” Smiley was really a scientist, he would know there is an enormous difference.

Smiley: “Nice try, Tom. My professional life and my life as a political hack are separate, not unified as in your case.”

No detailed response required here. Web-speak has the answer. It’s spelled “LOL!”

Oh yes, another Wikipedia expert absolutely certain he knows more than anyone else – absolute certainty I say – because the bible (Wikipedia) tells him so. Let me see, is Wikipedia a prestigious journal of climate science? Sadly, no.
Wikipedia’s Zealots: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

I recently checked out the Wikipedia work on Monchkton’s page and found them pecking away – using the page as an ordinary undiscipllined daily blog – working feverishly to express the same political hacker bias shown in this foolish blog.

I must say, it’s been a while since I’ve run across anyone who sites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Amazingly as a sword against real scientists with real qualifications and real peer-reviewed scientific material. From what I understand, every school child is taught that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

George: I can see that you don’t understand anything that’s going on – at least it appears that was (with absolute certainty) from your posts. So I’m going to try to be nice. I’m not optimistic about your level of civility – but I’m going to give it to you straight about the consensus theory pushed by Wikipedia.

The claims of official backing for Al Gore political initiatives by scientific organizations do not actually have any weight so far as real scientific consensus is concerned. To a large degree, propagandists favoring political measures take any agreement by anyone within an organization as the official backing of the organization for their cause.

While it’s true that heads of some scientific organizations have issued official position statements (and all government organizations express statements in line with government policy) – they do not express the views of the many scientists in those organizations – i.e. they are merely statements issued by lead administrators of the organizations board.

Many of the group support thingies that I’ve investigated cite only one source for their opinion – the IPCC report – and many governments have expressed a policy of acceptance; including the US government. So, at present, it’s policy to state acceptance of the IPCC findings.

That’s not science – and has nothing whatsoever to do with real scientific opinion.

And while we’re at it, “consensus” is political process – not science.

Those, like Smiley, who work hard every day to close down debate and dissent – are backing the worst kind of political movement.

Before I start the short primer below, I want to repeat something from one of my articles. In 1990, the IPCC falsely predicted catastrophic global warming. They have since adjusted their computer model and their predictions. There is no more prediction of catastrophic global warming – not even from the IPCC. Enough time has passed for a good look at the alarmist hypothesis.

The scientific consensus – the only one that ever really existed – is that there was a slight warming during the 20th century – i.e. we had global warming – nobody doubts that. The scientific debate deals with why, and what will happen in the future. There never was scientific consensus on these questions – and at present – there are many who are changing their minds.

A short primer:

There are scientific theories that have the backing of a great majority of scientists because they have reached the level of scientific theory – i.e. that they are well established by fact, testing, experimentation, and are consistent with other reliable scientific knowledge. A key feature of established scientific theory is that it can be used to predict.

The only “evidence” in favor of the view that human activities are the primary cause of global warming isn’t real scientific evidence at all. It’s the computer program used by the IPCC to make predictions, which is designed – written by human programmers – to drive warming with greenhouse gasses. So first off – all we have here is a circular argument – the model predicts warming in response to CO2 increases – why? – because it was programmed to –

For short bursts, the model seemed to give results related to the real world – that’s when CO2 and temperature happen to be increasing at the same time. Is that proof? Sadly, no. There is a basic tenet of science – correlation does not prove causality.

The model might be more convincing if the correlation was reliable, but it’s not. It predicts warming when cooling occurs, and has predicted much more warming than occurs in real life. Correlations with other factors – such as solar activity – have been much better. Other factors consistently end up having a greater impact on the climate than greehouse gasses. The short burst correlations that appeared to show cause and effect (distinct from longer term correlations in which CO2 lags temperature increase – suggesting temperature increase might cause CO2 increase rather than the other way around) have not held up.

That greenhouse gas is the primary cause of gobal warming and we are headed for catastrophe if extreme political and economic measures are not taken hypothesis – has already failed.

Scientists are changing sides every day. One recently explained his change of heart. He said that when asked earlier, he had sided with the IPCC. Why? Well – he really hadn’t looked into it in detail and the media kept reporting it was true. So, like everyone else, he was influenced by the mass media. But now he’s looking into the details himself – and the more he looks – the more he’s convinced that the IPCC is wrong.

Wikipedia’s Zealots: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

The National Post isn’t actually respectable. Just so you know.

OK, Roger. I’m going to take your refusal to answer my question as to why you didn’t link to that OFcom report in the article you linked to here as tacit admission that your intent was to misrepresent its findings. Nice job.

So cute. These jackasses are still trying to make scientific arguments, which they’re not qualified to make (again, neither am I) deep into a days-old thread on a web site dedicated to ridicule. If they are very lucky, a dozen people will read what they’ve written.

Straight out of Cervantes.

“OK, Roger. I’m going to take your refusal to answer my question as to why you didn’t link to that OFcom report in the article you linked to here as tacit admission that your intent was to misrepresent its findings. Nice job.”

Oh yes, by all means – support your argument by claiming you’re right, based “on a technicality.” LOL!

Here’s another article, not written by me or anyone I know – that includes a link to the article. As a technical matter, you can no longer claim that haven’t provided access to the article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/ofcom_global_warming_swindle_adjudication/

And Smiley – I’ve seen plenty of examples of the use of propaganda techniques, and I’d have to say that yours provides one of the most humourous uses of “appeal to authority” I’ve ever seen. Wikipedia – LOL!

correction: “article” in above twice = Ofcom report

Here’s another article, not written by me or anyone I know – that includes a link to the article. As a technical matter, you can no longer claim that haven’t provided access to the article.

I didn’t “claim” that you didn’t provide a link to the article here. LOL! I stated it as a fact that you didn’t provide a link to the report in your own article so I’m going to ask again. Why not?

The link to wikipedia was a link to a list of links pointing to the web sites of scientific acadamies and societies. It does not matter that the list is at wikipedia, because the list is easily verifiable by using a “browser” to “visit” the “links.”

You could (a) show that the list is biased by providing a list of scientific organizations that were omitted from the wiki list, if such organizations exist; and (b) you could yourself CORRECT the wiki list if you think it’s in error. I would hasten to point out that a LOT more people would see your efforts there, than will see your efforts here, and that they might actually be receptive to what you have to say.

But, of course, that’s not what’s driving you.

Hilariously, you’re completely fixated on a tiny group of people who are mocking you deep on an old thread at a political satire site where no one else will ever know what you’ve written.

And you lack the discipline to escape….

“And you lack the discipline to escape….”, asserts our unidentified “Professor” . Hmm, who was it that said he was not going to post here any more? Oh yes, the “Professor” himself, “Dr.” George Smiley.

“Professor” Smiley has still failed to answer my question, which remains:

I asked for a meaningful poll of working scientists in the field, not a list of official statements from bureaucracies, that supports the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis. If such a poll exists, it is important we all see it. Otherwise, claims to such a consensus are simply fabricated.

I know of one scientists poll and it certainly shows the opposite of a consensus – see http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.pdf .

Try http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.pdf again – it works this time. http://www.heartland.org/pdf/GKSS_2007_11.pdf is the original report from the German researchers.

http://www.heartland.org/pdf/Bray3.pdf and http://www.heartland.org/pdf/17407.pdf are also interesting

Where’s your poll “Professor” Smiley? Or do yo expect us to believe in your elusive consensus of scientists just because you (and Al Gore) say so.

http://mensnewsdaily.com

MND’s mission is to publish intelligently written opinion of interest to men across the political spectrum. The site is designed to highlight men’s issues from an international and essentially conservative or libertarian perspective. Our purpose is to give men a place to pick up their daily news unfiltered by common political correctness.

At MND you will find stories related to the treatment of ordinary men in the modern world – those walking wallets of family court, or the fathers that Hollywood routinely portrays as dolts and buffoons. But you will also find a wide variety of content on other topics, including world and American politics, international events, science, nature, technology, religion, and even …

you’re completely fixated on a tiny group of people who are mocking you deep on an old thread at a political satire site where no one else will ever know what you’ve written.

Sadly, George, that’s not true. Sadlyno.com has a google page rank of 4, which means the page may be available to anyone in the world, depending on the search term used.

For example, if I googled the term “Ranch-flavored Doritos and Three Musketeers candy bars”, the current article should come up in a google search.

Let’s try it! “Ranch-flavored Doritos and Three Musketeers candy bars”

Oh, wait. That’s not SadlyNo. It’s another obscure blog that linked to sadlyno.

Nevermind. I guess you’re finally right about something: your editors at Nature are unlikely to witness the ease with which Roger and Tom forced your nose up your own leaky arse.

And with that, I shall withdraw and leave you to suck up your lost fluids. There are indeed more Gore clones to humiliate elsewhere.

Yippie-ki-yay, herr doktor “professor”.

Regarding the Heartland Institute, here’s the Sourcewatch page on them. They’re an astroturf group for various industries. Exxon and Philip Morris have been major contributors.

And that GKSS survey that they promote has come under heavy criticism for sampling bias. It was emailed to a list of AGW skeptics for starters and the response to the criticism from Tim Lambert by one of its authors was about as weak as Roger Gay’s defense here of his journalistic standards. Beyond that even the authors of the survey have criticized the way it’s been used by people like Tom Harris. BTW here’s a little background on Tom. Guess what, there’s a possibility that he’s not an honest guy.

You fellows have read Don Quixote, haven’t you? You’d love it. The main character was really into the weather.

Sadly, George, that’s not true. Sadlyno.com has a google page rank of 4, which means the page may be available to anyone in the world, depending on the search term used.

So if you’re worried about people coming here and seeing the material your site publishes come under such heavy criticism why are you doing such a weak job of defending it?

Mike LaSalle: is it really *that* easy to get you to wallow in the mud? You’re a cheap date!

“Yippie-ki-yay”

Die Hard. He is quoting Die Hard.

In 2008.

The stupidity is incandescent.

Lawnguylander said, “Regarding the Heartland Institute, here’s the Sourcewatch page on them. They’re an astroturf group for various industries. Exxon and Philip Morris have been major contributors.”

Aw, yes, the guilt by association fallicy. Nice one but irrelevant since the German researchers did the survey long before Heartland decided to publicize it -check the dates.

“And that GKSS survey that they promote has come under heavy criticism for sampling bias.”

OK, and the climate hysteria side has how many scientist polls to cite? None that you folks appear to know about.

“BTW here’s a little background on Tom. Guess what, there’s a possibility that he’s not an honest guy.” Thanks, if a site like Deltoid dumps on me with nonsense, then I must be becoming more of a nuisance to their crusade – good. You forgot to cite all my references on DeSmogBlog – they are good for a laugh as well (BTW, DeSmogBlog is also run by Hoggan, who just happens to chair the David Suzuki Foundation – no conflict of interest there, eh?).

Glad to see you are not leaving us after all “Professor” Smiley ;>).

Tom (again) gives his game away by calling a scientific position that he disagrees with “hysteria” rather than “a position that I disagree with.”

By the way, Tom, have you considered the etymology of the word “hysteria” and perhaps asked whether it’s really a word that you want to use in that way?

Tom is so cute. He thinks that scientists communicate through polls rather than through the peer-reviewed literature.

It would be pretty funny to submit your signature on a poll as part of a tenure package. Funny, and a massive fail.

It was “Professor” George Smiley who told us he would go with the so-called consensus view on the science. I merely challenged him to demonstrate that the consensus exists among scientists, something he is obviously unable to do.

While science is never decided by “consensus” or any show of hands, since George brings it up, with no evidence of the existence of such a consensus, I in turn bring up a poll that shows the exact opposite of consensus.

For those who don’t want to take the time to review the poll I reference, here are the results:

A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

* 56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

* 35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.

Some consensus (BTW, since that poll was conducted, we have seen overall cooling and so I imagine almost all of the scientists would now not say GW is happening (at least in the 21st century)).

t is those who want billions of our tax dollars who need to demonstrate that “scientists agree” that we have a climate crisis, not those of us who, quite rationally, are sketical of such excited claims.

I have to admit that I agree with the guy that debate here isn’t worth much. The comments demonstrate that a small number of dedicated loonies visited on the first day or two, then disappeared. I suspect thats its whole life story.

I told you guys privately, there’s no sign of intelligence here and no reason for interest. If someone out there in the great blogosphere writes an intelligent response, I’ll be glad to take a look at it.

[Clif adds: Congratulations, Roger, you’ve finally stumbled on the obvious — we don’t debate stuff around here. We make fun of the stupid shit that people like you say — in this instance, for example, that Al Gore was threatening death to children who didn’t join his cult and your hilarious confusion about what the Norwegians had to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, and don’t forget the hilarity of your musing that it was illegal or sinister for the Clinton campaign to post stuff on YouTube. And if that stuff didn’t prove that you’re a dope, you’re insistence on hanging around here trying to engage folks in a debate on anthropogenic global warming, erased all doubt.]

“For those who don’t want to take the time to review the poll.”

Here is a man who understands his target audience (but not where they hang out; hint: it’s not at Sadly, No!).

“If someone out there in the great blogosphere writes an intelligent response, I’ll be glad to take a look at it.”

An *intelligent* person would recognize that nothing y’all have posted to this thread merits an intelligent response. Hence the responses that you *have* gotten.

Or hadn’t you figured this out? We. Don’t. Respect. You.

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/121685913348370.xml&coll=7

We don’t respect wingnut newspaper columnists any more than we respect you, Roger.

Aw, yes, the guilt by association fallicy (sic). Nice one but irrelevant since the German researchers did the survey long before Heartland decided to publicize it -check the dates.

It would have been pretty amazing if Heartland had publicized the survey before the researchers conducted it. Don’t you agree? As for “guilt by association fallacy”, Exxon and Philip Morris are funding a group that’s denying AGW and the dangers of second hand smoke and that’s relevant information to anyone looking to evaluate the group’s objectivity whether you like it or not. Just like someone looking to evaluate your credibility would want to know who’s funding groups you’ve worked for.

You forgot to cite all my references on DeSmogBlog – they are good for a laugh as well (BTW, DeSmogBlog is also run by Hoggan, who just happens to chair the David Suzuki Foundation – no conflict of interest there, eh?).

Yes, they are good for a laugh at you so thanks for the reminder and here’s some info on you from DeSmogBlog:

Canada’s latest and greatest climate change denial group, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project, has come up with a laughable reason for hiding it’s funding sources. According to a recent CanWest News Service article, the NRSP’s executive director, Tom Harris, states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group.”

Uh huh. So if associations with energy companies and their lobbying arms are not an issue why the secrecy?

More from one of the Deltoid links in my previous comment:

In other Tom Harris news, he’s the been editing the Wikipedia page on the Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group a PR company that lobbies for energy companies.

What was that all about? How say thus?

Hey Clif: comment like the rest of us bozos so it shows up in my RSS feed.

Because of the mysterious intricacies of WordPress, for me to leave a normal comment is a PITA. I’m signed in as Gavin but posting as Clif. So I have to log out as Gavin and then navigate back to the comment form and fill out the name, email and URI on the email form all over again as Clif and then leave the comment. Grrrr. If RSS were really smart, it would detect my edit responses to comments and not force me to post a new comment. I blame it on RSS. And WordPress. And McCain. And Bush. And Bob Novak.

I blame the heat.

SourceWatch is very similar to Wiki, DeSmogBlog and Deltoid as they are all out to personally smear anyone they perceive as being opposed to their cause. I and others have attempted to provide them with the correct information but this does not serve them purposes so of course they ignore us. Nothing from those sites is even worth commenting. The first two are so far out of date they think I am still with NRSP even though I left them in February.

I and others have attempted to provide them with the correct information

That there’s a lie.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

“Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor [Tom? More like bottom 1%], grammar [‘but this does not serve them purposes’], and logic [heh, as they say down south, indeedy] grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.”

You guys give up on this one yet? I mean, have you figured out what the majority of people in the world have – that Al Gore is in fact a big, fat liar and that the global warming scare was a hoax?

Oh, BTW: Alfred Nobel didn’t give control of the prizes in his will to Norway.

I call fake Roger F. Gay. Who would be so mad about it that they’d try for the last word a year and a half later?