Wolfowitz Deputy Doctored World Bank Climate Change Reports
Wolfowitz Deputy Doctored World Bank Climate Change Reports
Juan José Daboub, a strong advocate of the Iraq war, was rewarded with a managing director post when Paul Wolfowitz took over the World Bank. In that role, Daboub appears to have been Wolfowitz’s designate to drive the conservative agenda.
Daboub has started to come under heavy criticism from the Bank’s executive directors for pushing a hard-right agenda that stands in stark contrast to many of the Bank’s long-standing policies. In addition to his efforts to undermine family planning policies, Bank scientists are now disclosing that Daboub also tried to eliminate references to climate change in official reports:
Robert Watson, the chief scientist, said Mr Daboub tried to dilute references to climate change in the Clean Energy Investment Framework, a key strategy paper presented to the bank’s shareholder governments at its annual meeting in Singapore last September.
“He tried to water it down. He tried to take out references to climate change,” Mr Watson said. Two other officials confirmed this account.
The chief scientist said Mr Daboub, who oversees the sustainable development division, tried to remove some references to climate change completely and, in other cases, replace them with the phrases “climate risk” and “climate variability”, which convey greater uncertainty over the human impact on climate.
Mr Watson said: “My inference was that the words ¬’climate change’ to him implied human-induced ¬climate change and he still thought it was a theory and was not proved yet.”
Daboub’s efforts at the Bank bear a striking similarity to efforts by Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Handwritten notes on drafts of several climate reports issued in 2002 and 2003 showed Cooney repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
99 Responses to “Wolfowitz Deputy Doctored World Bank Climate Change Reports”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Da-boob. The name is Da-Boob. Wolfie hired Da-Boob.
Can’t make this stuff up.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pmDon’t mess with a cult!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:03 pmHowever in better news, SPINAL TAP RE-UNITES TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18298505/
April 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pmeven though im not a very religous man, it sure would be nice if god could make some time in his busy day to smite the shit out of these worthless sacks of flesh…. thanks jesus!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pmThe WORLD Bank - just another extension of the Republic Party. GAWD how far does this go?
I weep for what we have become. It’s time to fight back.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pmDa man is really da boob for wolfie.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pmPatrick1,
Is John McCain a member of that cult?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 04/ 23/ AR2007042300786.html
April 25th, 2007 at 3:08 pmheavy criticism from the Bank’s executive directors for pushing a hard-right agenda that stands in stark contrast to many of the Bank’s long-standing policies.
That have worked so well….LOL
April 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pmThis is how Empires fall. Too bad the praetorian guard doesn’t just kill Bush in his bath and then install Murtha as the new Emperor. You know, the way they killed Caligula and then picked Claudius.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPatrick1,
What do you believe on the issue of global warming? Do you think it is a myth like Inhofe does? Are you a denier as well?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:15 pmI don’t think it’s proper to be lamenting the fact no one is assassinating the President of the United States.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pmDa-boob. The name is Da-Boob. Wolfie hired Da-Boob.
Can’t make this stuff up.
Comment by PTF — April 25, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
And da-boob Bush hired Wolfie.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pmpatrick1 is giving Jake the day off. Jake’s earned it, as he was working late on Friday. And it’s really no big deal to patrick. I mean, it’s not like he has to put any thought into the things he posts…
April 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pmIt is a man made faith created after the evidence became simply overwhelming to just about everyone on earth that socialism/communism doesn’t work.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pmJohn McCain’s greatest flaw is he cares what the NYT and Washington Post editorial board thinks of him.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:18 pmPatrick1,
What do you believe on the issue of global warming? Do you think it is a myth like Inhofe does? Are you a denier as well?
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 25, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Peadick will be back as soon as he checks his talking point sheet.
You’re not supposed to change’s topics on them so abrubtly. It makes them go peepee in their troll pants.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWHile I’m no supporter of John McCain, I thought this quote was quite well reasoned and well said.
“Al-Qaida must revel in the irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the war they caused. As we sacrifice blood and treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots and carry out attacks on our soldiers and citizens,” he said. “The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the conditions on which terrorists prey.”
April 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pmPatrick1,
Why don’t you answer the questions?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:20 pmI did but I guess it didn’t make it on here.
Global Warming is a man made religion or cult that is based on the fact that to almost everyone on earth communism/socialism has failed. So the true believers had to drift somewhere and this cult is where they have landed.
Kind of sad actually.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pmatrick1 is giving Jake the day off. Jake’s earned it, as he was working late on Friday. And it’s really no big deal to patrick. I mean, it’s not like he has to put any thought into the things he posts…
It is a man made faith created after the evidence became simply overwhelming to just about everyone on earth that socialism/communism doesn’t work.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 25, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
See what I mean? Thanks for proving my point, patty-meltdown
April 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pmDon’t mess with a cult!
Comment by Patrick1
This is the limit of Patrick’s intellectual capabilities when there is not something for him to cut and paste into the post.
Crump, Patrick is trying to find a site with the answers to your questions. Expect a lengthy reply when he finds something.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:26 pmPatrick1,
I’m curious by this line of thought. So you think going to renewable sources of fuel is a bad idea?
What is so coommunist about trying to stop what could be the worst disaster in the history of human beings, while at the same weaning ourselves off of middle east oil. Even the security implications alone should get you on board with the world cutting carbon emissions. Right?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:27 pmTackling climate change
Hot topic
Apr 25th 2007 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com
China may become the world’s single biggest polluter sooner than you think
http://www.economist.com/ displayStory.cfm?story_id=9070135
April 25th, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhy did his comment disappear? He posted a comment that I replied to. My reply is there, but his post is gone.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:29 pmNo. I have no problem with renewable sources of fuel, but that is not what the cult of global warming is about.
Global Warming is about ending capitalism and increasing fear and making people more and more dependent on the failed liberal welfare state.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSPINAL TAP RE-UNITES TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING
With 17,000 (and growing) scientists to the list who are undecided on global warming, the global warming cult needs as many rock stars and politicians as possible to keep hype alive.
Global warming was used as a political tool by Al Gore.
It is being used by Sheryl Crow.
Now, Spinal Tap tries to revive their career.
Pathetic. They’re playing YOU for suckers. And YOU’RE falling for it!
April 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pmPatrick1 is s useless piece of sh!t, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him admit when his party has tried to screw the entire world with the fu*ked up policies.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pmPee 1,
April 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pmDo you actually eat with that mind of yours?
Global Warming is man made that is based on fact.
Right, couldn’t agree more.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIf you want to see the results of the liberal World Bank policies look at Africa. I’m not surprised the subsudized bureaucrats would latch on to the cult of global warming to advance their agenda. Everyone has caught on to their economic policy of austerity and socialism.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt is a man made faith created after the evidence became simply overwhelming to just about everyone on earth that socialism/communism doesn’t work.
Comment by Patrick1
Actually, Patrick did answer this in what has to be one of the stupidest things any troll has ever said. First, me and most scientists look at the issue based on the evidence and not on some belief system. (I know that’s a hard concept for you to grasp. Just understand that we do NOT think on the same level as you.)
Secondly, this economic angle that Rush and others spew is just ridiculous. Throw out this wild claim that a concern for the future of our planet is really a subversive attempt to bring down the western economic system. Of course, Exxon and others are the real ones with the economic interest in this. Do you deny that the oil companies have been spending BIG money to introduce doubt into the global warming issue?
Finally, why does everything that you don’t agree with have to be ‘communist’? It shows that you are ignorant and are here for no other purpose than to slander anyone with a left-leaning political bent.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIs it just me or do these guys, who were major figures behind the Iraq war, just keep on coming out as being serious wrongos?
I mean, you have Wolfowitz, who abused his power in favour of his girlfriend, you have the Bush administration rife with everything from fraud to pedophilia, to lying Congress into a war which has pretty much turned out to be a mistake.
You have the Republican party as a whole, which basically hit the most thoroughly single party bribery scandal in America’s history, and the Republican press, namely guys like Hannity, Limbaugh etc… with a reputation for being a bunch of drugged out nutters.
And now you have this guy, pretty much doing what Republicans always do, trying to doctor scientific reports in a bid to basically decieve the rest of the world bank.
Seriously, how do people who seriously vote Republican on a values vote manage to tie their own shoe laces in the morning? Do they dress themselves or is there something to this whole nanny state business?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pm#20, perhaps Sheryl Crow needs to fax the Chinese government the “one toilet tissue per sitting” memo on how to solve global warming.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:37 pmPatrick1,
do you have any evidence that “Global Warming is about ending capitalism and increasing fear and making people more and more dependent on the failed liberal welfare state.”?
Or is that just your standard reply?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pmmuckdog
Care to source that there statistic of yours or can we, as the more aware public, take it as being a total fabrication?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:39 pmGlobal Warming is man made that is based on fact.
No. It’s based on many assumptions. There are many facts that cast doubt on the “man-made” assumptions. This is why over 17,000 scientists are on record as stating that they have doubts over the current global warming consensus. They’re not afraid to say “I don’t know.” It’s not politically expedient. It won’t revive a political career or bring a rock career out of its demise. But it’s the truth.
Right, couldn’t agree more.
And you’re wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pmMuckdog,
I just found it funny that Spinal Tap is doing anything about anything. I love the movie.
About your membership in the denier club, perhaps you can explain to me why Greenland has a new Island if not for Global Warming?
“The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland’s enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.â€
April 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pmEvidence other than the policies recommended to stop it?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:40 pmPatrick,
Could you just answer this - Is it right for corporations like Exxon to heavily fund research that casts doubt on global warming? Is this ethical in your book?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pmBruce, ever heard of Google? There is so much information out there by scientists and climatologists who aren’t afraid to go against the media hype on global warming. I’ve linked to at least 20 so far the past few weeks.
Quit being a liberal. Try doing some research for yourself instead of being spoon fed by your “leaders.”
April 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm17,000 scientists undecided?
Please state your source and be sure to include whether or not the ’scientists’ are experts in climateology…
Here’s the source that I use to strengthen my argument
April 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pmIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Just as ethical as Congressman who vote to fund it to advance their socialist policies.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:46 pmPuleeze. We humans think we have any contriol over “climate change” stand back and look at the history of this planet as far as occurances of disruptions in weather patterns and take note of the recent solar activity which has ALWAYS had control of the climate. It would behoove you more to study the effect of the toxicity of the organic byproducts from combustion of fossil fuels and how they affect humanity, flora and fauna than to whine about CO2, especially since the decimation of the largest sink on the planet for the benefit of those who must have the largest mc mansion. When you think outside the box don’t get into another box. But then those who do have the abilities to research damaging chemicals cannot and will not do so for fear of losing funding. Ugly ugly situation.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pmMuckdog, Patrick,
Let’s just assume that there is ‘doubt’ on global warming. Given the potential consequences, don’t you think it’s best to err on the side of caution? Are you really saying that we should do NOTHING about it?
Please tell us what you think our society as a whole, and America in particular, should be doing about it. Do you have a plan other than coming on progressive web sites and starting arguments about it?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pmIt’s interesting that people think that man can manipulate the environment without any consequence one way or another. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and so regardless of the direction, there must be that change that balances out the equation. Otherwise, perpetual motion machines would work and we wouldn’t depend on any recource that depletes.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pmPatrick1,
Nearly 75% of Americans support raising CAFE standards. One only needs to see the success Toyota is having in becoming the now number one auto-naker in the world thanks to it’s embrace of hybrid technology. THere is mucho money to be made in green technologies. I think it’s too bad that you don’t see this issue as a winner for us on three fronts. It’s creates a brand new industry that we can help propel the economy. It’s gets us off Middle East oil which allows us to flip those countries the bird economically, which obviously improves our security situation. And oh yeah, it helps save the planet.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pmQualifications for being a Republican:
April 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm1) Must be a sociopath;
2) Must know how to lie;
3) Must be without ethics and morals;
4) Must pretend to be a “good Christian”;
5) Must be intolerant and bigoted;
6) Ability to follow the great leader blindly;
7) Wealth preferred, but low IQ will suffice as an alternative.
I’m all for letting the market work. If you can produce a less polluting car that can do what a current automobile can do for the same price.
But again that has nothing to do with the cult called global warming.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGood ridddens Mr. Wolfowitz, but he is no conservative. He is a neo.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pmHowever, scientists have no consensus on the contribution to green house gases from humans. Volcanoes contribute more as do oceans. The greatest
contributor the the Earth climate over all earth time is the sun and the sun spot activity is a good dynamical indicator of this contribution. This is an “o duh” to physical scientists but not to a global socialist agenda. Please go watch “The great global warming swindell” on google video. It keeps disappearing or is broken up in pieces to discourage you. I dwnloaded the whole thing recently.
Look at the data graphs. Sun spots and global warming…. yes.
I think we have to stop relying on public officials to do the right thing. As consumers, WE hold the real power. WE are the ones who enable Exxon, Ford, et al to continue their dirty businesses.
One thing everybody can do is to simply stop buying any more new cars that burn gas. Zero Emission Pledge.com
April 25th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHas Algore or Sheryl Crowe signed that pledge?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pmmuckdog
Actually, there are a lot of sites out there which are total crap, and unacredited. Indeed, if you trust everything on Google, then I suppose you believe that GW Bush caused 9/11, that Al Gore burns whole forests down just for kicks and that the average human female, spends most of her nights producing pornography.
I shudder to think what aliens judging our culture based on the Internet would have to say about us as a species. Indeed, Anime may well be used to justify our annihilation.
Personally, I go on scientific reports, as well as the statements of the UN’s scientists, who have strengthened their warnings, not weakened them. If you are going to respond to this by stating some sort of warped conspiracy theory about how they want to rule the world, can I ask you if you believe that the Illuminati rules the world’s economy? And if you do, do you have any idea where I can join up?
Indeed, I tend towards believing people like Nasa on the issue, rather then lone nutters who could be virtually anybody, and who have a tendency to falsify information (As Brittish scientists can attest over a recent documentary by climate skeptics released on Channel 4.)
In fact, the recent bid by big oil companies to give scientists 10000 dollars in order to have them back the anti-global warming arguement speaks quite eloquently to me of the intellectual honety the denialists side of the debate so frequently champions.
Further, noting that the effects of carbon on heat retention is something any science class on earth can test in a lab, I would tend to agree that chances are fairly good that pumping a lot of CO2 into the air would likely have an effect on our environment.
And lastly, I asked for a source. You do the legwork for your argument, it is not up to me to supply the backing for your argument.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pmI’m all for letting the market work. If you can produce a less polluting car that can do what a current automobile can do for the same price.
But again that has nothing to do with the cult called global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 25, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Ground beef and other assorted meat products used to be produced for a lot cheaper than they are now….of course they were full of human fingers and a whole host of other equally disgusting ingredients. Good thing the market took care of that for us. By which I mean it didn’t.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pmIn regard to #19, it sure is surprising that the “cult” of global warming has now been embraced by McCain, contender for the GOP presidential nomination & by David Cameron who is the head of the Conservative Party in the UK.
The same “cult” supposedly beloved by ex-Commies is also supported by the strongly anti-Communist German prime minister Angel Merkel. And by the editors of the ECONOMIST and BUSINESS WEEK, and by Nature Magazine and the Scientific American …
This is an odd “cult” unless you consider mainstream climate science around the world to be cultist. As opposed to, say, the bright-eyed objectivity of the Bush Administration.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pmI don’t understand why, with a scientific question like this, one having nothing to do with politics and little to do with policy, simply an evaluation of accumulated data, those who dispute that man plays a significant role in global warming are inevitably politically conservative.
Can anyone explain that to me?
Given that among other favored positions on scientific questions, conservatives tend to believe that “the jury is still out” on evolution and that homosexuality is a “choice”, I’d say they’re generally not arguing from a position of strength.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:11 pmYou can scare politicians into supporting most anything. Like most cults it strikes fear.
There is not mainstream science on this. There is the UN which is little more than a joke now and a bunch of old socialists like Algore.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pmOkay, I just googled it.
You are quoting a survey which has this on it in Wikipedia.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[10] â€
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[11] â€
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer?), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor?), “Robert C. Byrd” (the senator?), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author?). And then there’s the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.”
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “It’s fake,” he said.[12]
Feeling silly yet?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWith 17,000 (and growing) scientists to the list who are undecided on global warming,
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Muckdog, never one to peddle the truth, no doubt refers to Frederick Seitz’s global warming petition. The petition is a fraud, and Seitz is a nutcase. Very few of its signers are practicing scientists. Only a few signers are qualified climatologists, and nearly all of those signed it many years ago in the 1990’s when some legitimate uncertainty remained.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:18 pmPatrick-dumber-than-a-rock and Muckdog:
Denying global warming at this stage is futile. It marks you as idiots or liars or both. It is truly, truly pathetic to believe that you can go up against the entire world scientific community without looking like utter j*ck*sses.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNew kind of PRAISE:
“Thanks, man!!!
You da BOOB!!”
Wolfie’s fcuked…
So’s da BOOB in da whitehaus…
April 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pmSorry, no “cigar”, Monica!!
I googled Clinton Jay Stephens Rostenkowski:
http://www.google.com/ search?hl=en&q=clinton+jay+stephens+rostenkowski&btnG=Google+Search
NOTHING about Stephens being fired because of Rostenkowski.
Matter of fact, his SUCCESSOR did INDEED indict Rostie…
Joe Conason provides FACT, not right-wing trash innuendo…
READ!!
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ conason/ 2007/ 03/ 16/ clinton_attorneys/
April 25th, 2007 at 4:33 pmUnreal. Time to impeach.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pmThe ’scientific’ community is most often a mere puppet of its funder’s, who are in turn nothing more than the politicians who infest and ‘run’ DC. To be caught with ‘doctored’ data is only indicative of poor management since incorrect “results” will result in a loss of funding.
To those who claim the undeniability of global warming, let me address the undeniable hubris in your uneducated statements. There is no concrete evidence that humans have caused global warming, nor any evidence that they have even had a contributing factor in it, if it indeed exists. Measuring temperatures for 100 years can NOT predict a trend in a thousand year or more cycle. This is high-school level science. Moreover, it has been measured and documented that a single volcanic eruption (Mt. St. Helens for example) has produced more greenhouse gases than the entire industrial revolution.
I doubt that the average internet “scientist” will comprehend these statements, but it’s important in science to consider all aspects of a hypothesis. To call a debate of politically motivated pseudo-scientists and conclude that something is or isnt occuring without so much as asking for opposing viewpoints — and blocking the unwanted opinions of colleagues of mine, shows the truely sad state of the so-called scientific community in the US.
I am a scientist and I approve this message.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pmThe ’scientific’ community is most often a mere puppet of its funder’s, who are in turn nothing more than the politicians who infest and ‘run’ DC.
I am a scientist and I approve this message.
Comment by Dr. J. Rockrimmon — April 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Hey, “Doc”. I would expect that a trained scientist, educated at an advanced level and required to publish research data for peer review, would know that the plural of “funder” does not take an apostrophe.
Odd that a trained scientist would make the same kind of embarrassing grammatical mistake that our resident trolls make all the time. Maybe you have research assistants that you depend on to proofread your work before publishing?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pmDr. J. Rockrimmon,
Interesting post. Especially the part where you said “Measuring temperatures for 100 years can NOT predict a trend in a thousand year or more cycle.” I agree.
that’s why scientist’s figured out that they could study temperature fluctuations in the arctic ice that is nearly 500,000 years old. Good thing eh?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pmI am a scientist and I approve this message.
Comment by Dr. J. Rockrimmon — April 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
I’ve never heard someone who specializes in a science actually call themselves a “scientist.”
April 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pmKrank, you will find our spelling even worse, and it is my comment being blocked. Yeppers.
Actually, I believe the ‘ is correct afterall, as in funder’s community, o well science rocks!
If I put a url in here from real scientists in the community, it will get blocked again! Betcha!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pmFalse erock, we do so all the time. I am also a physicist and
April 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pmmy comments are being blocked.
Expecting a scientist to be able spell / conjugate? What is the world comming to? I thought that we took science to -avoid- english class.
Additionally if the best arguement against me is that I can’t spell, I feel decent - even pretty good!
Also you provide me with an excellent example of the lack of understanding about global warming. Again you quickly assume things with no scientific basis. Perhaps my grammar merely reflects a foerign background, not fully familiar with the english language. Does that make my point less valid?
I suspect that the troll here is called krank. Or maybe he is that pesky RA that I assigned to counting ceiling tiles.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pmAnyway, so long and with respect to the science url this group will not post,
April 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pmthey do not want you to know!!!
Dr. J. Rockrimmon
To claim that scientists issue statements based on what their backers say says less about their integrity and more about your total lack of any. To claim that that peer reviewed papers do not come with strong evidence behind them is to admit that you don’t know anything about what peer review is about.
Indeed sir, the big money is on your side of the fence, and it is not through a matter of political convenience that scientists from your competing countries, say that Global warming is a problem. It is from it being a problem.
In short sir, I find your lack of honesty on this subject offensive.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:10 pmKrank,
Good point. That is a third grade grammatical error and it’s clearly not a typo.
Perhaps the good doctor could tell us where he got his PhD and in what. I’m assuming that a PhD would easily be able to provide a link to some of his or her work.
Two points. First, the politicians who run this country have strong ties to the oil companies which have funded global warming denials such as your trash. This is the typical ‘big lie’ theory that Rush and others push - the only bending of science is by the other side - despite the fact that there is clear economic motive to hide the potential problems of excessive greenhouse gases.
Secondly, could you provide the document that notes one volcanic blast emits more greenhouse gases than mankind? … I didn’t think so.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pmKrank, … I believe the ‘ is correct afterall, as in funder’s community, o well science rocks!
Comment by ep — April 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Wrong. The statement did not say “funder’s community”. Read it again.
Sounds like a lame troll pretending to be a physicist in order to defend another lame troll pretending to be a generic “scientist”. “Science rocks”? Please.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI suspect that the troll here is called krank. Or maybe he is that pesky RA that I assigned to counting ceiling tiles.
Comment by Dr. J. Rockrimmon — April 25, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
What typesetting system do you use to write your papers?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pmVerbalkint, who believes that Sheryl Crow, Spinal Tap, and Al Gore are scientists! LMAO!
The majority of the scientists are “unsure.” They do not buy into the exaggerations of the global warming hysteria nuts.
Accepting man-made global warming at this stage is futile. It marks you as an idiot or liarsor both. It is truly, truly pathetic to believe that you can go up against the majority of the world’s scientific community without looking like an utter j*ck*ss.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:13 pmMuckdog,
As I’ve asked before, given that there is doubt, and that the potential danger is huge, don’t you think we should err on the side of caution?
Also, do you deny that the oil companies have been funding studies that intend to spread doubt about the reality of global warming?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pmOK Bruce I’ll take you on. Wrong again. Have this site allow the blocked url and you will hear discussed by the likes of Nigel Calder that funders, typically gov. non scientists like to see their political viewpoint expressed , or you do not get any funds for your project. My colleague, Dr. Rockrimmon and I share the same view that this web page/site does not allow opposing opinion, in detail.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pmExpecting a scientist to be able spell / conjugate? What is the world comming to? I thought that we took science to -avoid- english class.
Additionally if the best arguement against me is that I can’t spell, I feel decent - even pretty good!
Also you provide me with an excellent example of the lack of understanding about global warming. Again you quickly assume things with no scientific basis. Perhaps my grammar merely reflects a foerign background, not fully familiar with the english language. Does that make my point less valid?
I suspect that the troll here is called krank. Or maybe he is that pesky RA that I assigned to counting ceiling tiles.
Comment by Dr. J. Rockrimmon — April 25, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Wow. What a mass of tangled justifications, all falling well short of the mark.
Yes, I expect educated people to know how to express themselves clearly. Misspellings and typos on forums like this are to be expected, but “funder’s” used as a plural is not a typo, as it requires an extra keystroke that is not near either the “r” or the “s”. it’s just a common, telling mistake made by people who know no better.
You suggest, “Perhaps my grammar merely reflects a foerign background, not fully familiar with the english language. Does that make my point less valid?” but you don’t affirm that it’s the case. Is English a second or third language for you? If so, what is your first language? And the fact that your writing displays a substandard level of expression and technical mastery does not invalidate your point. It does, however, call into question the identity you claim, which in turn calls into question your honesty as well as your authority on the subject.
Besides all that, you obviously don’t know what the term “troll” means, either.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmmuckdog
A few examples of guys who you evidently think are scientists:
“Perry S. Mason†, “Michael J. Fox†, “Robert C. Byrdâ€, “John C. Grishamâ€
Meanwhile, I am going to stick with the IPCC.
And that those celeb types figuring it would be a good idea to get the message out? More power to them.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmfor Dr Rockrimmon who just walked away on est — so I will answer, laTEX.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pmprob misspelled.
ok last comment, I have concluded from this little experiment here, and thank you, that the url is blocked at a high level as are several key words in it. lunch time on west coast, bye.
oh oh, we are being blocked again.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pmIt was announced this week that this year all the reductions in emissions were more then offset by the worst polluter in the world, China. China is now the worlds #1 Co2 emitter and are planning a 50% increase the next few years. It is time America gt tough. We need to announce a 30% reduction in our emissions. At the same time we need to demand and even force China to reduce its emissions. For starters, the world needs to demand China at a minimum have emissions reduces to get in line with tat of Europe. They should be using emissions per GDP which is the measure most scientists use. We should use Europe as an example and then demand China match that.
If China doesn’t cooperate, we need to start by putting massive fines on all exports. These fines need to make Chinise goods cost more then anyone else’s goods. This would be a solid signal that the world is finally serious. India and Russia aren’t much different.
This is why America needs to get on the ball. We need to set reudction levels now so we can go after the largest polluters : CHINA, INDIA, and RUSSIA.
We may to be late already but we have to try. Hopefully the world alone with the USA are strong enough to force China to change or our chilred will have a serious problem.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI think this site, like many others, do not allow URLs to be posted for security reasons. Not that I care, but you could probably post the URL without the ‘http’ and it would at least show.
I must say my 10 year old could do a better job convincing us that a pair of academics has come onto this site to impart their scientific knowledge as professional scientists.
Could you at least tell us what university you two are from? Where did you and Rocky get your PhD? Surely, those are easy to answer questions that are easy to check.
BTW, it looks like you can’t even tell time. It’s 2:30 here on the west coast not lunch time.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe majority of the scientists are “unsure.†They do not buy into the exaggerations of the global warming hysteria nuts.
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Suggestion: Stop for 10 minutes downloading gay porn and read this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
April 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pmep
Okay you want to take me on.
Exxon. Mobile. BP. Opec. Sasol. These guys are both rich, and very threatened by the end of fossil fuels, so you tell me who is more likely to fight tooth and nail, and who has the bigger funds, somebody who is ultimately a volunteer run organisation which operates purely on donations - or somebody whose very business and wealth could go up in smoke if Global Warming is really proven to be a threat?
And you will have to do better then Calder, who is basically a science documentary writer, not an active researcher in the field of global warming, or for that matter his own ingrown toenail.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIt is unfortunate that this type of corruption occurs within an organization that is attempting assist in the development of nations. While the World Bank is far from upstanding in their policies, there needs to be more effort in assisting in the growth of undeveloped countries if the issues that face the world today are to be addressed: global poverty, disease, global warming etc.
If more was done to support the UN Millennium Development Goals, there would certainly be a drastic difference in what this world will look like in ten years, as opposed to the path we are on now. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition. Put into perspective, the US alone has spent over $340 billion on the Iraq war to bring peace and there has been no positive result. It’s ridiculous that Bush got to appoint Wolfowitz; it just undermines the entire deveopmental goals of the World Bank.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pmIPCC has been debunked. Next.
As I’ve asked before, given that there is doubt, and that the potential danger is huge, don’t you think we should err on the side of caution?
$400 billion a year in estimated costs that YOU’D have to pay seems like quite an “erring” on the side of caution when it’s not warranted.
Even if we ASSUME global warming is this huge catastrophe, there is no evidence that man can do anything to stop it. The biggest impact we could have on CO2 emissions would be eliminating the burning of fossil fuels by closing down the coal power plants and building nuclear power plants.
Since nobody wants to do that, any further discussion is as ridiculous as “using 1 piece of toilet tissue per sitting.”
April 25th, 2007 at 6:28 pmI am a scientist and I approve this message.
Comment by Dr. J. Rockrimmon — April 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
You aren’t a scientist.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pmIPCC has been debunked. Next.
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Verbalkint, who believes that Sheryl Crow, Spinal Tap, and Al Gore are scientists! LMAO!
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I think that everyone here can see that these statements are both outright fabrications.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pmOh, and here is another fabrication.
The majority of the scientists are “unsure.†They do not buy into the exaggerations of the global warming hysteria nuts.
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
In fact, everything you have written in thread is fabricated. You appear to be a sociopathic liar.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pmEven if we ASSUME global warming is this huge catastrophe, there is no evidence that man can do anything to stop it. The biggest impact we could have on CO2 emissions would be eliminating the burning of fossil fuels by closing down the coal power plants and building nuclear power plants.
Since nobody wants to do that, any further discussion is as ridiculous as “using 1 piece of toilet tissue per sitting.â€
Comment by muckdog — April 25, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Wow. I didn’t realize it was that simple. I thought it was a lot more complex than that, and that there were other paths we might take. How foolish I was! Thanks for explaining it to me, Mr. Wizard!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pmDear Progs - How do YOU think Greenland acquired its’ name? If people are the most evil thing on the planet, why don’t you lobby for a “Soylent Green” solution?
Tooodles…….
April 25th, 2007 at 8:42 pmMuckdog,
You are so full of sh*t!! It really is the strategy of you Repukes to lie as large as you possibly can and hope that someone actually buys it.
The IPCC has been debunked?! Don’t you think A LITTLE more facts and figures would be required to back up this outlandish claim? Can you tell us which parts of the 18 page report are suspect? … No, I didn’t think so. Please don’t just cut/paste from some Exxon-sponsored report.
The $400 Billion figure you mention is something you pulled from your ass. How about something as simple as raising the CAFE standards for our vehicles? How in the hell would that cost us money? If anything, it would SAVE us money and IMPROVE our economy. (Note: Exxon profits != good for the economy.)
Your conclusion to all of this can be summarized as ‘do nothing’. I’m sorry. I just can’t do that. That fits in fine with your selfish philosophy but not with mine.
You are a real scumbag. I hope they pay you well to post here. It’s a really shitty job!!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pmvaliant venus
Historically, Greenland got its name as part of what historians consider to have been the world’s first property scam. You see, Erick the Red wanted settlers to come to his frozen little rock, so he called it Greenland - despite the fact that it was, indeed, a frozen little rock.
Of course, those settlers all eventually died out due to malnutrition, and not having enough wood to build boats to get the heck off of the island. The current population of Greenland is from a later series of settlers.
Any other questions?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:30 amDear Bruce - Thank you for clearing up the Greenland question? Now if you would tackle the “how do we rid the world of excess people” problem, I might be somewhat impressed. I mean, if mankind is to get a handle on the pesky global warming problem (before it turns into a FULL BLOWN catastrophe) what do you suggest?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:54 amCAFE standards. LOL.
Did you know that Toyota plans on making all of their cars hybrid? The free market is responding to consumer demand as the technology is available. Government intervention is not needed. As a matter of fact, if Congress wants to vacation in Syria for the next few years, they’d be doing us all a favor.
Unfortunately, the nuclear nuts are responsible for the US building more coal power plants. Which are more damaging than the new fleet of vehicles rolling off the assembly lines. An estimated 200,000 people a year die of lung disease due to the radioactivity from coal power plants spewed into the air.
Don’t be an environmentalist for the “fad of the day” called global warming. Do it because you want clean air and water. Do it because you want to quit sending money to OPEC. Do it because you care about your kids.
If you hold up the Time magazine articles from 30 years ago warning about the coming ice age to today’s warning about global warming, it’s almost the same exact article using the exact same kinds of studies and theories. Just substitute the words “warming” for “cooling,” and there you go. With just as much certitude, too.
Global warming will wane in popularity once those using it for political reasons are done with it. When Al Gore is done running for office and when Sheryl Crow releases a comeback album, that’ll be it global warming. People will move on to something else that they perceive to be the crisis du jour as spoon fed to them by those trying to use it for personal gain.
And you’ll fall for it again. LOL.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pmmuckdog
If Al Gore is running for office he is keeping it very secret.
And frankly, you have no argument, just repeated lies which have been shown to be lies. I have no respect for liars, and you are one.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pmOh, and VV
Canabalism is your sides idea of a fun time.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pmThis statement utterly annoys me. First, Mr. Daboub and for that matter most nonscientists need to understand the basic definition of a theory in the context of science and realize how many studies it takes to become an accepted theory in science. I’m fairly harsh with supposed educated people who cannot understand this. For example, I like to ask them if they have ever taken an antibiotic for an infection. Then I like to explain cell theory to the person and explain how much work went into developing cell theory as well as that theories can only be tested not “proved.â€
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pmThe other issue with this statement is his announcement that climate change implies anthropological influences. Even if a person is to successfully argue that anthropological influences do not have a significant input into climate change and argue that it is a natural phenomenon, I find it near impossible to argue that climate change, with or without human influence, is not taking place by simply reading up on the scientific data that has been gathered documenting climate over the last 115,000 years from ice core samples in Greenland for instance. When I explain the theory of anthropological influences in climate change, I like to take it down to a basic chemistry equation. If we burn petroleum or coal that was once a living organism, part of the reaction involves release of carbon dioxide. Some of the carbon dioxide is sequestered into living plants, some into soil, and some in the ocean, but when these sequestering systems reach maximum capacity, carbon dioxide is then allowed to accumulate into the atmosphere. From studies with ice cores, tree cores, looking at atmospheric conditions on other planets, etc., scientists know that high levels of carbon dioxide are positively correlated with warmer climates, even then, correlation is not considered causation. Although when someone uses this in argument alone, I like to go back to my example of taking prescription medicine. Scientists know that taking anti-depression medication is correlated with an improvement in mood usually, but this is not grounds for causation. I find it irritating when someone is in position to make decisions and does so impetuously.