Beware the oil company-funded naysayers

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The triumph of fringe science

Global warming naysayers argue that we don't need to do anything to stop rising temperatures. Mainstream scientists used to be able to ignore them, but now they make White House policy.
By Katharine Mieszkowski
Pages 1 2


August 7, 2003 | When the White House announced its 10-year strategic plan for its Climate Change Science Program this July, the more than 300-page document could be summed up in two words: more research.
The plan's No. 1 priority is to study the ways that the climate varies naturally, as in, for example, the El Niño phenomenon. A secondary priority is to gather more information on human, or non-natural impacts on the atmosphere. Whether caused by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests or belching industrial pollution, man-made effects on climate can be "quantified only poorly at present," according to the plan. So, to "reduce uncertainty" more data collection is needed.
It's a research agenda that enshrines the suspicions of global warming skeptics into federal policy: "Looking at the executive summary, I'm generally pleased with it," says William O'Keefe from the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that's received hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding from ExxonMobil. "The reason that they've focused on research is not a way to slow down taking action," he says. "Most of what we think we know about the climate system and human impacts on it comes from computer models that are based on hypotheses. There is a terrible deficit of real scientific information where you actually go out and gather data."

While the White House preaches the need for more study, more than 2,000 scientists from across the globe -- contributors to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- have been in agreement since 1995 that human activities are contributing to worldwide warming. The United States' own National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that some of the warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 50 years is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxid


http://tinyurl.com/2d8qat
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
And yet IPCC contributors bail, signatories have to threaten legal action to get their names off the IPCC lies.

Yep it's junk science, based on a erroneous model trumpeted by the sheeple.

More like "Beware the eco marxist fascists".

What a joke, anyone that dares stand up against the socialist BS of the doomsdayers, is automatically an oil industry shill.

How pathetic.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Oil companies pay huge money to plant doubt. A little doubt is all they need. People with little more than high school education can come out and say anything to spread doubt. A popular phrase is"Even top scientists don't agree". In fact, a huge majority of top scientists do agree but these people have planted that little seed of doubt. The sad thing is, that this bit of doubt keeps people from working on solving the problem.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Solving what problem?

How the hell are we supposed to stop sun spots and solar flares?

The lies and bent facts behind the GHG causing GW movement, is just pure trash and nothing more.

All the evidence it uses to support itself, has been misleading bastardized and/or bent to prop up the socialist anti west crowd. The blind sheeple so willy to drink the Koolaid, are doing not one damn thing that will stop the rise in global temps.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Jeremy Leggett

Carbon wars

Beware renewed ExxonMobil's efforts to discredit the evidence of climate change. They've been at it for years.

Jeremy Leggett


Articles

Profile


All Jeremy Leggett articles
About Webfeeds

April 25, 2006 2:35 PM | Printable version
This week the Guardian reported on a leaked internal memo from the Royal Society that showed that its elite brotherhood of British scientists are worried about a campaign by fossil-fuel interests to try and discredit the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report when it is published next year. The memo cites ExxonMobil as an actor in this dismal effort to emulate the tobacco industry. The deans and bishops of British science are preparing a systematic fightback, it seems.
Good for them, and not before time.
The planners of the fightback will need to consider historical context, if they are to appreciate fully how big their task is. Between 1990, when the multi-government negotiations for a climate treaty started in earnest, and 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, I had the dubious privilege of watching Exxon and its collaborators from the front row, as an environmental lobbyist at the talks. I wrote the only eye-witness account of the history of the climate negotiations that exists, to my knowledge (The Carbon War, Penguin 1999). In it, I describe how the "carbon club" - the network of coal, oil and other fossil-fuel-related industry umbrella groups at the climate talks - goes about its work. Throughout the long run-up to Kyoto, the carbon club consistently distorted the science, and on several occasions plumbed scarcely credible depths of misinformation and manipulation in its efforts to derail the climate convention.
I list the main episodes below. Given the stakes if society fails to stem greenhouse-gas emissions - casualties measured in hundreds of millions if the best estimates of government climatologists are correct - I argue in The Carbon War that this campaign amounted to a new form of crime against humanity.
For most of the period described in the book, I was a climate campaigner. Since January 1997 I have been running a solar energy company, during which time I have only rarely witnessed first hand the carbon club going about its insidious work. But I have read regular accounts of their behaviour in the press. There is one big difference, though, between 1996 and 2006. BP, Shell, Texaco and the others have long since quit the club of climate-treaty wreckers in shame. Exxon-Mobil - as it now is post-merger - plays on, unreformed. Note the first line of the list that follows, and the last.

A CATALOGUE OF CARBON CLUB MANIPULATION, DISTORTION, SABOTAGE OR LYING AT THE CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS.

Unless otherwise stated, all episodes were witnessed by the author. Specific accusation and outcome are in italics.

• May 1990, Bracknell, UK: Exxon's lead climate lobbyist, Brian Flannery, attempts to water down the first IPCC scientific assessment report, the report which forced governments into the climate negotiations. (Attempted manipulation: unsuccessful)
• August 1990, Sundsvaal, Sweden: Don Pearlman of the World Climate Council, a key carbon club organisation, openly coaches the Saudi Arabian delegation to the final IPCC plenary before the World Climate Conference. The Saudis deploy stalling tactics as a device to water down the IPCC's summary report, (attempted sabotage: partially successful), including a laughable concerted effort to excise the words "carbon dioxide" from the document (manipulation: partially successful).
• February 1992, New York: The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobby group representing Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, BP, and many other oil, coal, and auto companies, uses professional sceptic Fred Singer to attack the IPCC science at a press conference during the fifth session of negotiations (INC 5). The GCC issues a briefing entitled "stabilising carbon dioxide emissions would have little environmental benefit." (Distortion: outcome unknowable). Exxon's Flannery, Pearlman of the WCC, and GCC chief John Schlaes are constantly in each others' company at the talks.
• June 1992, Rio de Janeiro: At the Earth Summit, with heads of state signing the newly negotiated Convention on Climate Change by the dozen, the GCC stages a press conference which lays out a central carbon club wrecking strategy for the years to come. Executive Director John Schlaes leads a concerted effort to emphasise the growing emissions of developing countries, preparing the way for a sustained attack by the carbon club on the soft underbelly of the Convention, which ultimately led to long-running deadlock in the build-up to the Kyoto climate summit. (Manipulation; ultimately unsuccessful)
• May 1993, Barcelona: Bush Administration climate negotiator Harlan Watson lavishes praise on Pearlman and Schlaes at an international coal industry conference, warning the industry that it is gravely threatened because of the Convention on Climate Change, and exhorting them to work with the carbon club to defend their industry. At the 2005 Climate Summit in Montreal, Watson is the lead US negotiator for George Bush Junior.
• September 1993, New York: On the same day that the President of the Reinsurance Association of America tells an international insurance conference near Wall Street that global warming could bankrupt the insurance industry, Fred Singer writes in the New York Times that "as observations and theory diverge more strongly with each passing year, it becomes more certain there is something very wrong with the computer models that have been used to scare the world public and their governments into considering drastic, hasty actions." This is part of a renewed assault by the carbon club on climate science, aiming to head off the potential for progressive moves by the Clinton Administration. "Conservatives and industry groups," the New York Times writes, "have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat. In a drum roll of criticism over the last few months they have characterised the thesis of global warming as a flash in the pan,' hysteria,' scare talk,' and a ploy by socialists to justify controls on the economy."
• August 1994, Geneva: At the 10th session of negotiations, the largest-ever carbon club presence carries a twin-pronged attack on science and competitiveness. "To date," John Schlaes wrote in a Global Climate Coalition submission, "science has been unable to establish what qualifies as a dangerous level of greenhouse gas concentrations. This makes a judgement on the adequacy of commitments logically impossible." (Misrepresentation tantamount to distortion: effect unknowable).
• September 1994, Geneva: Don Pearlman reportedly orchestrates an emasculation of a key IPCC report. Environment groups send a letter to the co-chair of the IPCC's policy responses working group, copied to every key IPCC official and many heads of national delegations, alleging that an IPCC meeting in Geneva had produced a draft policymakers summary which had been systematically amended in such a way as to remove most of its key policy conclusions. By and large, the letter alleges, the amendments and deletions to this text had been made in response to the objections of only one or two countries and of only a few industry lobbyists. (Manipulation: successful)
• February 1995, New York: At the 11th session of negotiations, the GCC releases a study by a weather consultancy, Accu-Weather, which claims that there was no convincing observational evidence that extremes of temperature and rainfall were on the rise. The temperature claim was based on three supposedly "representative" stations, all in the USA, and the precipitation claim - incredibly - was based on just one station. As though one, or three, stations could represent the whole USA. As though the USA could represent the whole world. A press conference for the print media goes badly, reportedly, when the journalists learn what the analysis is based on, but still significant damage is done via unquestioning television and radio news. (Distortion - disinformation at its very worst: partially successful)
• March 1995, Washington and Berlin: The Global Climate Coalition tries to bully the President of the Reinsurance Association of America into not attending the Berlin Climate Summit to discuss the financial sector's emerging concerns about global warming. (Attempted manipulation: unsuccessful)
• March/April 1995, Berlin: At the Berlin Climate Summit, Der Spiegel reporters investigate Don Pearlman, and trap "the high priest of the carbon club," as they call him, in a lie. A Dutch climatologist tells them about the tampering Pearlman has organised, via the Kuwaitis, in the IPCC process. At a critical meeting, the Kuwaitis evidently tried to submit amendments, in Pearlman's own handwriting, of otherwise undisputed statements. And at a vital late night session of talks in New York in February, where the carbon club had so blatantly ferried instructions to the OPEC delegations that UN officials had told the lobbyists to quit the negotiating chamber. Pearlman denied to Der Spiegel that such a thing happened. A UN official confirmed it, on record. (Lying: unsuccessful)
• November 1995, Madrid: At the final plenary of the IPCC scientific working group, as the crucial policymakers summary of the Second IPCC Assessment is drafted, Don Pearlman - a non-scientist - overtly issues instructions to oil-ministry officials from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (also non-scientists). So blatant is the manipulation, that one senior US climatologist asks if he can have his name removed from the final report.
• June 1996: The Global Climate Coalition orchestrates a campaign to discredit Ben Santer, a lead author of the Second IPCC Assessment. Santer had altered the text of the draft to reflect changes agreed in Madrid - as requested by the meeting. The GCC sought to cast this as scientific fraud, saying "the changes quite clearly have the obvious political purpose of cleansing the underlying scientific report." The IPCC's leadership point out that Santer was merely following agreed procedures. (Distortion: outcome unknowable).
• October 1997: Exxon is prominent in a US Chamber of Commerce campaign to derail the Kyoto Protocol by casting it as a document that lets the developing world off any commitments on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile Exxon's boss Lee Raymond tells the Chinese at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that attempts to curtail fossil fuel use were "neither prudent nor practical."
Despite all these efforts to derail the climate talks, the Kyoto Protocol was finally negotiated at an all-night session involving most of the world's governments in December 1997. The treaty then had to be ratified by a critical mass of governments in order to come into force. Exxon-Mobil campaigned on, trying to delay the inevitable as much as they could. Some key events since then have been:
• January 2000: World Economic Forum (2,000 + CEOs) votes global warming No. 1 issue of concern to global business.
• February 2000: Texaco quits the Global Climate Coalition: 1st US oil company to break ranks. BP quit in 1997 and Shell not long thereafter.
• June 2000: Exxon-Mobil CEO denies link between oil burning and global warming at AGM. BP rebrands as "Beyond Petroleum." Worldwide advertising campaign stresses solar and downplays oil.
• January 2001: Global Climate Coalition winds up, saying Bush presidency means they are no longer needed.
• February 2001: Oil companies face a record number of shareholder resolutions on global warming at AGMs.
• March 2001: America pulls out of Kyoto Protocol.
• November 2001: Governments vote in Marrakech to continue the Kyoto Protocol process without the USA.
• May 2003: Exxon backing for climate sceptic groups exposed. Exxon CEO tells AGM profits come before "social statements"
• February 2005: The Kyoto Protocol comes into force, finally, after Russia ratify it despite Exxon-Mobil pressure not to.
• June 2005: ExxonMobil takes out obscure ads saying "the world faces enormous challenges" on energy and environment.
• July 2005: Exxon CEO calls solar and wind energy "inconsequential" and says it will never meet needs.
• December 2005: US forced to retreat on Kyoto. At the Montreal climate summit, outrage greets Bush's effort to stop future talks. Exxon's long-standing lobbyist, Brian Flannery, is there on the International Chamber of Commerce delegation, to help Harlan Watson and his colleagues from the Bush administration out if they are needed. Flannery presumably doesn't have to work so hard in 2005 and 2006 as he did in 1990.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Solving what problem?

How the hell are we supposed to stop sun spots and solar flares?

The lies and bent facts behind the GHG causing GW movement, is just pure trash and nothing more.

All the evidence it uses to support itself, has been misleading bastardized and/or bent to prop up the socialist anti west crowd. The blind sheeple so willy to drink the Koolaid, are doing not one damn thing that will stop the rise in global temps.

Hold on Bear.
Do you even know what a solar flare or a sun spot is? These things don't happen in secret. There are millions of amateur astronomers around the world who would tell us of increased solar flare activity. Like any of the global warming sceptics, you have no evidence, and less knowledge.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Solving what problem?

How the hell are we supposed to stop sun spots and solar flares?

The lies and bent facts behind the GHG causing GW movement, is just pure trash and nothing more.

All the evidence it uses to support itself, has been misleading bastardized and/or bent to prop up the socialist anti west crowd. The blind sheeple so willy to drink the Koolaid, are doing not one damn thing that will stop the rise in global temps.


Everytime you use the Koolaid stick you highlight the vigorous brutalaly obvious brain scrubbing of the capitalist spin machine. "Socialist anti-west" is a garbage concept, planted in your head by garbage farmers, and bearing garbage fruit for a garbage market.:laughing7::wave:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Hold on Bear.
Do you even know what a solar flare or a sun spot is? These things don't happen in secret. There are millions of amateur astronomers around the world who would tell us of increased solar flare activity. Like any of the global warming sceptics, you have no evidence, and less knowledge.

Everytime you use the Koolaid stick you highlight the vigorous brutalaly obvious brain scrubbing of the capitalist spin machine. "Socialist anti-west" is a garbage concept, planted in your head by garbage farmers, and bearing garbage fruit for a garbage market.:laughing7::wave:
Yes of course the two most popular refuting statements by the socialist elitists.

1) You don't know what your talking about.

and of course their favourite...

2) You've been brain washed.

Grow up, get original.

This site will undoubtedly be dismissed as an oil industry shill...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So many out there trying to show everyone else how they think they have the smoking gun. Notice how both sides use very cautious language (at least the reputable), while others make claims as if they are carved in stone and brought down from the mountains to enlighten us all. The simple facts are that when we talk about the climate, we can't isolate one variable to account for what is and has been happening. Would anyone even think of trusting univariate models?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
ehran: 00:38 , 2007/03/12 javascript:void(0); this to a friend
Tehran Times Opinion Column, March 12, By Viktor Danilov-Danilyan The Kyoto Protocol and climate change TEHRAN, March 12 (MNA) -- Two years have passed since the Kyoto Protocol went into force. A total of 150 nations have ratified this extraordinary international document. It embodies humankind’s pragmatism and was drafted with the aim of reducing the negative anthropogenic influence on the biosphere and the climate. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Preparations for its implementation will be completed this year and monitoring of compliance with Kyoto Protocol commitments will start in 2008. All industrialized countries have pledged themselves to reduce emissions by 5% of 1990 levels, and they will certainly do this. Europe, Canada, and Japan have launched large-scale preparations for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Russia was slow to act, but now we have made some progress in preparing a list of emissions sources and a register of emissions reductions. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has focused on this problem, and, I believe, will adopt appropriate standards, enact delegated legislation, and streamline the entire inventory system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It will not be difficult for Russia to abide by its commitments; it has amassed a huge reserve of emissions credits because of an economic decline in the 1990s. Despite its growing economy, by 2012 Russia will by no means exceed the level of emissions in 1990, which is the Kyoto Protocol’s year of departure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The energy-saving process began in Russia in the 1990s entirely as a result of market prices. These were later supplemented by new parameters of energy efficiency. The current technologies available on the world market are of a later generation (using the monstrous Siemens-Martin double-hearth furnace with its record energy-output ratio is totally out of the question in the Russian steel industry).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But in Russia, energy use per unit of GDP is 3.1 times greater than in the European Union (before the admission of new members). Some 25-30% can be chalked up to the cold climate, but by and large we continue heating the world around us, wasting a lot of energy. The power industry uses hydrocarbons to generate 75% of its energy, and the higher the energy efficiency, the lower the energy intensity, and, hence, the less carbon dioxide goes into the air.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Kyoto Protocol’s measures are intended to progressively modify the general energy balance. Its joint implementation projects could help re-equip the industry with less energy-intensive and more environmentally friendly technologies. These projects provide for direct investment in upgrading production, and payment will be received in the form of saved emissions. They could guarantee our industry much-needed modernization without (or with very modest) financial expenditures. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But we do not have proper legislation for such joint implementation projects. Our Western partners are interested in cooperating with us and have subjected Russia to heavy criticism more than once. For them, Russia is a close, familiar, and highly profitable market, but we are not letting them in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Any economist or analyst would applaud more sensible spending on global aims. The gist of the Kyoto Protocol is to develop mechanisms which would rationalize spending as much as possible. For instance, Denmark, Britain, and Germany have to pay through the nose for emissions reductions in their countries. In this case, they could spend money to reach the same goals in other countries where similar measures cost much less, achieving a tangible environmental improvement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Global warming-related problems are getting worse with every passing year. The Kyoto Protocol, which aims to slow down this process, is therefore becoming more important. Every new report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points to an increasing anthropogenic contribution to climate change. The percentage of that change for which humankind is responsible went up from 60% five years ago to 90% last January. Predictions of warming in the 21st century have been going up as well. Initially, experts mentioned 1 degree Celsius, then 1.5. Now optimists are talking about 2 degrees, while pessimists predict 6.5 degrees by the late 21st century.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are quite a few experts that call into doubt the climatic effect that the Kyoto Protocol’s measures will have. Now the concentration of greenhouse gases in the air is about 370 ppm (carbon dioxide in parts per million). By 2012, this figure is expected to grow by 18 ppm if the Kyoto measures are not carried out, or by 16-17 ppm if they are. The difference is a mere one or two ppm. This is what the Kyoto Protocol’s critics emphasize. But experts believe that even a 1 ppm reduction would be quite good. If we proceed at such a pace, we may eventually be able to stabilize humanity’s influence on the climate. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]RIA Novosti contributing writer Viktor Danilov-Danilyan is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the director of the Water Problems Institute.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MS/HG[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]END[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MNA[/FONT]


459962
.......................................................................................................................
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63

Those wacky Danes. They've been off-track for a while on the solar influences. Unforrtunately it seems to have become persistant in Danish education. The groundwork for the Solar camp was performed by a couple of Danes who used some 'cherry-picked' data. The authors were Friis-Christensen and Lassen. Their work became popularized so much after their initial report in Science 1991, that they followed up with more work in 1995 and 2000.

Those reports contained some major statistical errors, and gross misrepresentation. Namely, they added 4 points to their graph citing data was not yet available to properly filter that region of the graph. In 2000, when they did an update, they used data which has been shown to contain mathematical errors. Now in 2004, when the data became available, the graphs of actual data did not agree with their reports at all.

They also only used a single normalized Gleissberg cycle(solar cycles) without proper boundries. This gave them a large degree of freedom in determining whic solar cycle to use, and coincidentally choose the cycle which best fit their 'correlation'. When proper analytical techniques and statistics are considered, there 95% confidence in data drops to 25% up to 1980, and 15% to 1997 ( the fudged years in their original report)

In Denmark, this report was used in a documentary which has won a number of awards and is presented in high school curriculum in many Danish schools. They are heralded as giants in the climate discipline by the film, they have been referenced by many others since then, and their report is bull shyte.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Forget oil companies. Here is how you get funding:

"There is money for global warming science now it is in fact a multi billion pound international buisness. If a scientist puts a proposal to do a research project on the nuts collected by squirrels they will just not get funded. But if they state it is a research project on nuts collected by squirrels as an effect of global warming it will get funded"
http://z15.************.com/Psychestellic/index.php?showtopic=74&st=105
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Those wacky Danes. They've been off-track for a while on the solar influences. Unforrtunately it seems to have become persistant in Danish education. The groundwork for the Solar camp was performed by a couple of Danes who used some 'cherry-picked' data. The authors were Friis-Christensen and Lassen. Their work became popularized so much after their initial report in Science 1991, that they followed up with more work in 1995 and 2000.

Those reports contained some major statistical errors, and gross misrepresentation. Namely, they added 4 points to their graph citing data was not yet available to properly filter that region of the graph. In 2000, when they did an update, they used data which has been shown to contain mathematical errors. Now in 2004, when the data became available, the graphs of actual data did not agree with their reports at all.

They also only used a single normalized Gleissberg cycle(solar cycles) without proper boundries. This gave them a large degree of freedom in determining whic solar cycle to use, and coincidentally choose the cycle which best fit their 'correlation'. When proper analytical techniques and statistics are considered, there 95% confidence in data drops to 25% up to 1980, and 15% to 1997 ( the fudged years in their original report)

In Denmark, this report was used in a documentary which has won a number of awards and is presented in high school curriculum in many Danish schools. They are heralded as giants in the climate discipline by the film, they have been referenced by many others since then, and their report is bull shyte.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
See below...
Oil fired capitalists wouldn't play with numbers like that would they?:wave:
Oh of course only the oil industry supported hack scientists fudge the numbers.

Al Gore didn't just forget to mention that the pretty red a blue graph of the rise of CO2 and heat, going hand in hand, that fit together oh so conveniently, was in fact erroneous at best. Seeing as that CO2 was lagging by 800 years to the rise in heat.

Or how about the fact that the flaw in the GHG warming model is the fact that the tropisphere should raise in temp before the surface temps, but hasn't. It is in fact lower then surface temps.

Forget oil companies. Here is how you get funding:

"There is money for global warming science now it is in fact a multi billion pound international buisness. If a scientist puts a proposal to do a research project on the nuts collected by squirrels they will just not get funded. But if they state it is a research project on nuts collected by squirrels as an effect of global warming it will get funded"
http://z15.************.com/Psychestellic/index.php?showtopic=74&st=105
Geez, I bet the pro humans = GW crowd will call you and anyone that supports this, an oil industry shill.

I guess no one could find space.coms links to the oil industry, so they couldn't try and smear it as well.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html