Følgende er en beskrivelse av makkverket kjent som "The Oregon Petition", som fremstilles som et vitenskapelig og ansvarlig opprop av fornektermiljøene. Dette var et av Karl I Hagens hovedargumenter i debatten om global oppvarming. Istedet for å være et argument for deres sak, er det selvsagt heller et bevis på at "skeptikerne" og "realistene" hverken er skeptiske eller realistiske, men snarere uvitende og manipulerende. At de fortsetter å fremheve en sak som er debunket for flere år siden viser bare at de kynisk opererer etter prinsippet at om en løgn gjentas ofte nok ...
The Example of the 1998 Petition Campaign
In 1998, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received an envelope containing a bulk-mailed letter, an article, and a petition form. The letter was signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of a think tank, the George C.Marshall Institute. Seitz’s letter asked recipients to join a campaign urging the U.S. government to reject international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Kyoto Protocol. The petition said that “substantial scientific evidence” shows increased greenhouse gas emissions to have beneficial ecological consequences, whereas there is “no convincing scientific evidence” supporting concern about human-induced climate change.
The petition could be accessed and signed via an Internet site and collected more than 15,000 signatures from both scientists and nonscientists. On the petition form, signatories had the option of indicating their scientific background, as some did. The actual list of signatories includes persons identified as scientists and nonscientists with advanced degrees. Many signatories did not lay claim to advanced degrees. Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few. Nevertheless, many, including elected politicians, interpreted the signatories as credentialed experts on the climate issue, including Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska). In a House hearing, Hagel told of the “extraordinary response” to the petition effort, asserting that “nearly all of these 15,000 scientists had technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data” (Washington Post 1998).
The list even included fictional persons. Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “StarWars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “SpiceGirls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name (Washington Post 1998).
Additional examples of “conjured” scientific authority emerged around the petition campaign. The letter asking people to sign the petition was accompanied by a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial article by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, the two “chemists” quoted above. “Science Has Spoken,” read the title (Robinson and Robinson, 1997). The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).
Accompanying the petition package was an article referred to as a “scientific summary.” It was authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, as well as two Ph.D. astrophysicists, Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. The former two were once again affiliated with their “Oregon Institute,” while Baliunas and Soon were listed as affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute. The summary reviewed scientific evidence concerning climate change, concluding that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”
The “scientific summary”was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: it was formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer-reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.”
According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory (Science 1998).
Arthur Robinson initially declined to reveal the funding sources of the petition campaign. In response to pressure, he eventually acknowledged industry groups as the main financial backers of the campaign (Hill 1998). Simulation of grassroot support and similar deception is not particular to climate politics. It represents a deliberate tactic on the part of some public relations firms, as evidenced in the headline of a 1996 article in the New York Times titled “Sometimes Lobbyists Strive to Keep the Public in the Dark” (Fritsch 1996). The article describes a speech given by Neal M.Cohen, a specialist in “grassroots” lobbying from the public relations firm Apco Associates. In his talk to lobbyists, which was taped without his knowledge, Mr. Cohen “underscored a serious theme: the importance of keeping the public in the dark about who the clients really are.” Grassroots lobbying is a technique that camouflages an “unpopular or unsympathetic” client, often a large business. Typically, the client hires a Washington public relations firm to organize a coalition of small businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals across the nation. The coalition draws public sympathy for the legislation sought by the original client, who recedes into the background. Through advertisements, the public relations firm recruits members who serve as a grassroots cover for the client initiating and funding the effort—as Cohen is quoted as saying, they “used every campaign tactic [they] had in order to bring in as many people” as possible, making sure that “typical people [were] mixed in with large employers and political contributors.”
The George C. Marshall Institute, which was central in the 1998 Petition Campaign, presents itself as an objective source of policy advice on matters related to science, the environment, and national defense. On itsWeb site, as elsewhere, the institute claims to counter the politicization and misuse of science by providing policymakers with “accurate,” “rigorous,” and “objective” analyses on a range of public policy issues concerning science, national defense technology, the environment, and the economy. It offers itself as an alternative to a general trend toward politicized scientific appraisals.
The claims to objectivity of think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute emerge as another obstacle for lay recognition of bias in scientific information. The Marshall Institute was established in the 1980s to influence opinion and policy. It was established and continues to be run by means of money from wealthy conservative elites, including the Mellon Scaife’s family foundation (McCright 1998; Sarah Scaife Foundation 1996). Between 1992 and 1994 alone, the Marshall Institute,which is part of the conservative antienvironmental movement (McCright and Dunlap 2000), received more than a million dollars from just twelve influential private foundations supporting the conservative movement (McCright 1998). Despite the institute’s self-description, it is not unbiased. It shows a consistent bias toward free-market forces unfettered by regulation,which it also promotes. It was the Marshall Institute that was the target of the staffer’s complaint in the introduction about think tanks with deceptive pretenses to scientific objectivity.
Gjengitt med tillatelse fra artikkelen Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations, Myanna Lahsen, University of Colorado 2005.
Fornekternes beste våpen? Nei. Menneskers evne til å la seg dupere er fornekternes beste våpen. Direkte løgn er bare en del av arsenalet. Jeg kan legge til at Oregon petisjonens far, Arthur Robinson anbefaler hjemmeskole for å unngå "hjernevasking av barn". Han driver kurs i hjemmeskolingens fordeler (Robinson Curriculum) og selger et opplegg på 22 cder som lover fullverdig tolvårig utdannelse på 15 minutter dagen(!). "One caution do not use this curriculum unless you are willing for your children to be academically more learned than you." Til tross for Robinsons totale manglende evne til å akseptere vitenskapelig konsensus skriver han også: "Although most children will not become scientists or engineers, science and technology play such an important part in the modern world that adults who cannot think logically and effectively about these subjects are at a significant disadvantage". Nettopp ...
Robinson driver imidlertid primært med Orthomolekylær medisin, som påstår at megadoser med vitaminer kan kurere det meste, inkludert psykiske lidelser. Normalt er dette ansett som pseudovitenskap, men er en lukrativ pillebusiness. Robertson har i tillegg underskrevet en petisjon fra The Discovery Institute, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Han er altså motstander av utviklingslæren, og religiøs fundamentalist. The Discovery Institute (ikke å forveksle med Discovery Channel) er som kjent kreasjonister. Kreasjonistene mener blant annet at det var syndfloden som skapte istiden (hvilken? det er som kjent flere), at vekten av syndfloden fikk jordplatene til å knekke og skape fjell (???), og at det var vulkaner som varmet opp jorden igjen (???). Global oppvarming er del av denne sykelen (???). De som mener mennesket skaper global oppvarming må ifølge disse galningene svare på følgende: Hvorfor var det før så mye is på jorden?
Ikke engang prøv å følge med i denne sinnsyke (manglende) logikken.
Den godeste "Art" Robinson er en skikkelig crackpot med andre ord. Og en kunne lagt til - only in america ...
Satt opp mot fornekternes amatørmessige løgner har samtlige av disse nasjonale vitenskapsakademier spesifikkt bekreftet at de støtter den vitenskapelige konsensus omkring menneskeskapt global oppvarming:
* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* of Zimbabwe.
Langt flere aksepterer agw, ingen nasjonale vitenskapsakademier har erklært at de bestrider teorien.
I tillegg kommer følgende akademier og institutter som støtter teorien aktivt (ikke engang et forsøk på en fullstendig liste)
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
etc etc
I TILLEGG til dette støtter SAMTLIGE klimaforskningsinstitutter selvsagt teorien om menneskeskapt global oppvarming, et utvalg (og heller ikke et forsøk på en fullstendig liste) er:
NOAA
NASA/GISS
USGS
Hadley Centre
British Atmospheric Data Centre
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
The Environmental Change Institute - University of Oxford
Centre for Climate and Global Change Research, McGill University, Montreal
EPA, Global Change Research Program
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Australasian Climate Research Institute
The Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR)
Grantham Research Institute
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
National Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR)
Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology
Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, Russia
Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability (Australia)
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies
Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI)
Northern Climate ExChange
The Walker Institute for Climate System Research
Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM
The Alaska Climate Research Center
Oregon Climate Change Research Institute
Strauss Centre
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Institut fuer Chemie und Dynamik der Geosphaere
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environment
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The Intermountain Institute for Climate Research
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
The Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research Karlsruhe
etc, etc
Vei dette opp mot fornekternes strategi som går ut på å påstå at global oppvarming er oppfunnet av Al Gore subsidiært IPCC, og at det er IPCC og en håndfull forskere som lurer verden. Løgn og forbannet dikt, som alt annet fra fornekterne selvsagt, og det er på tide disse bløffmakerne blir avslørt som det de er. Det dreier seg om bevisst desinformasjon spredd med politiske motiver, og etterplapret av nyttige idioter uten naturvitenskapelig forståelse eller evner. Balansert debatt kan aldri eksistere, og er heller ikke ønskelig når den ene parten i debatten beviselig er sjarlataner, humbugmakere og svindlere.
The Example of the 1998 Petition Campaign
In 1998, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received an envelope containing a bulk-mailed letter, an article, and a petition form. The letter was signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of a think tank, the George C.Marshall Institute. Seitz’s letter asked recipients to join a campaign urging the U.S. government to reject international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Kyoto Protocol. The petition said that “substantial scientific evidence” shows increased greenhouse gas emissions to have beneficial ecological consequences, whereas there is “no convincing scientific evidence” supporting concern about human-induced climate change.
The petition could be accessed and signed via an Internet site and collected more than 15,000 signatures from both scientists and nonscientists. On the petition form, signatories had the option of indicating their scientific background, as some did. The actual list of signatories includes persons identified as scientists and nonscientists with advanced degrees. Many signatories did not lay claim to advanced degrees. Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few. Nevertheless, many, including elected politicians, interpreted the signatories as credentialed experts on the climate issue, including Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska). In a House hearing, Hagel told of the “extraordinary response” to the petition effort, asserting that “nearly all of these 15,000 scientists had technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data” (Washington Post 1998).
The list even included fictional persons. Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “StarWars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “SpiceGirls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name (Washington Post 1998).
Additional examples of “conjured” scientific authority emerged around the petition campaign. The letter asking people to sign the petition was accompanied by a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial article by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, the two “chemists” quoted above. “Science Has Spoken,” read the title (Robinson and Robinson, 1997). The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).
Accompanying the petition package was an article referred to as a “scientific summary.” It was authored by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, as well as two Ph.D. astrophysicists, Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. The former two were once again affiliated with their “Oregon Institute,” while Baliunas and Soon were listed as affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute. The summary reviewed scientific evidence concerning climate change, concluding that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”
The “scientific summary”was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: it was formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer-reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.”
According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory (Science 1998).
Arthur Robinson initially declined to reveal the funding sources of the petition campaign. In response to pressure, he eventually acknowledged industry groups as the main financial backers of the campaign (Hill 1998). Simulation of grassroot support and similar deception is not particular to climate politics. It represents a deliberate tactic on the part of some public relations firms, as evidenced in the headline of a 1996 article in the New York Times titled “Sometimes Lobbyists Strive to Keep the Public in the Dark” (Fritsch 1996). The article describes a speech given by Neal M.Cohen, a specialist in “grassroots” lobbying from the public relations firm Apco Associates. In his talk to lobbyists, which was taped without his knowledge, Mr. Cohen “underscored a serious theme: the importance of keeping the public in the dark about who the clients really are.” Grassroots lobbying is a technique that camouflages an “unpopular or unsympathetic” client, often a large business. Typically, the client hires a Washington public relations firm to organize a coalition of small businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals across the nation. The coalition draws public sympathy for the legislation sought by the original client, who recedes into the background. Through advertisements, the public relations firm recruits members who serve as a grassroots cover for the client initiating and funding the effort—as Cohen is quoted as saying, they “used every campaign tactic [they] had in order to bring in as many people” as possible, making sure that “typical people [were] mixed in with large employers and political contributors.”
The George C. Marshall Institute, which was central in the 1998 Petition Campaign, presents itself as an objective source of policy advice on matters related to science, the environment, and national defense. On itsWeb site, as elsewhere, the institute claims to counter the politicization and misuse of science by providing policymakers with “accurate,” “rigorous,” and “objective” analyses on a range of public policy issues concerning science, national defense technology, the environment, and the economy. It offers itself as an alternative to a general trend toward politicized scientific appraisals.
The claims to objectivity of think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute emerge as another obstacle for lay recognition of bias in scientific information. The Marshall Institute was established in the 1980s to influence opinion and policy. It was established and continues to be run by means of money from wealthy conservative elites, including the Mellon Scaife’s family foundation (McCright 1998; Sarah Scaife Foundation 1996). Between 1992 and 1994 alone, the Marshall Institute,which is part of the conservative antienvironmental movement (McCright and Dunlap 2000), received more than a million dollars from just twelve influential private foundations supporting the conservative movement (McCright 1998). Despite the institute’s self-description, it is not unbiased. It shows a consistent bias toward free-market forces unfettered by regulation,which it also promotes. It was the Marshall Institute that was the target of the staffer’s complaint in the introduction about think tanks with deceptive pretenses to scientific objectivity.
Gjengitt med tillatelse fra artikkelen Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations, Myanna Lahsen, University of Colorado 2005.
Fornekternes beste våpen? Nei. Menneskers evne til å la seg dupere er fornekternes beste våpen. Direkte løgn er bare en del av arsenalet. Jeg kan legge til at Oregon petisjonens far, Arthur Robinson anbefaler hjemmeskole for å unngå "hjernevasking av barn". Han driver kurs i hjemmeskolingens fordeler (Robinson Curriculum) og selger et opplegg på 22 cder som lover fullverdig tolvårig utdannelse på 15 minutter dagen(!). "One caution do not use this curriculum unless you are willing for your children to be academically more learned than you." Til tross for Robinsons totale manglende evne til å akseptere vitenskapelig konsensus skriver han også: "Although most children will not become scientists or engineers, science and technology play such an important part in the modern world that adults who cannot think logically and effectively about these subjects are at a significant disadvantage". Nettopp ...
Robinson driver imidlertid primært med Orthomolekylær medisin, som påstår at megadoser med vitaminer kan kurere det meste, inkludert psykiske lidelser. Normalt er dette ansett som pseudovitenskap, men er en lukrativ pillebusiness. Robertson har i tillegg underskrevet en petisjon fra The Discovery Institute, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Han er altså motstander av utviklingslæren, og religiøs fundamentalist. The Discovery Institute (ikke å forveksle med Discovery Channel) er som kjent kreasjonister. Kreasjonistene mener blant annet at det var syndfloden som skapte istiden (hvilken? det er som kjent flere), at vekten av syndfloden fikk jordplatene til å knekke og skape fjell (???), og at det var vulkaner som varmet opp jorden igjen (???). Global oppvarming er del av denne sykelen (???). De som mener mennesket skaper global oppvarming må ifølge disse galningene svare på følgende: Hvorfor var det før så mye is på jorden?
Ikke engang prøv å følge med i denne sinnsyke (manglende) logikken.
Den godeste "Art" Robinson er en skikkelig crackpot med andre ord. Og en kunne lagt til - only in america ...
Satt opp mot fornekternes amatørmessige løgner har samtlige av disse nasjonale vitenskapsakademier spesifikkt bekreftet at de støtter den vitenskapelige konsensus omkring menneskeskapt global oppvarming:
* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* of Zimbabwe.
Langt flere aksepterer agw, ingen nasjonale vitenskapsakademier har erklært at de bestrider teorien.
I tillegg kommer følgende akademier og institutter som støtter teorien aktivt (ikke engang et forsøk på en fullstendig liste)
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
etc etc
I TILLEGG til dette støtter SAMTLIGE klimaforskningsinstitutter selvsagt teorien om menneskeskapt global oppvarming, et utvalg (og heller ikke et forsøk på en fullstendig liste) er:
NOAA
NASA/GISS
USGS
Hadley Centre
British Atmospheric Data Centre
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
The Environmental Change Institute - University of Oxford
Centre for Climate and Global Change Research, McGill University, Montreal
EPA, Global Change Research Program
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Australasian Climate Research Institute
The Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR)
Grantham Research Institute
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
National Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR)
Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology
Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, Russia
Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability (Australia)
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies
Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI)
Northern Climate ExChange
The Walker Institute for Climate System Research
Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM
The Alaska Climate Research Center
Oregon Climate Change Research Institute
Strauss Centre
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Institut fuer Chemie und Dynamik der Geosphaere
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environment
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The Intermountain Institute for Climate Research
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
The Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research Karlsruhe
etc, etc
Vei dette opp mot fornekternes strategi som går ut på å påstå at global oppvarming er oppfunnet av Al Gore subsidiært IPCC, og at det er IPCC og en håndfull forskere som lurer verden. Løgn og forbannet dikt, som alt annet fra fornekterne selvsagt, og det er på tide disse bløffmakerne blir avslørt som det de er. Det dreier seg om bevisst desinformasjon spredd med politiske motiver, og etterplapret av nyttige idioter uten naturvitenskapelig forståelse eller evner. Balansert debatt kan aldri eksistere, og er heller ikke ønskelig når den ene parten i debatten beviselig er sjarlataner, humbugmakere og svindlere.
9 kommentarer:
You made my day! Fortsett å knus disse siklende, åndsvake idiotene som kaller seg realister og bedriver reneste nytalen. De fortjener null respekt.
Du har overbevist meg. Fornektere er et snillt begrep. De fortjener ingen nåde.
Utrolig hvor frekke disse folka er, også Karl I. Hagen, da. Men legg merke til at FrP med Solvik-Olsen har begynt å ro bort fra at de noensinne har bestritt global oppvarming. De vet nok hvor tynn is de er på.
Nina
You Go, Helge!
Amy ;)
Kurt,
Nei, dessverre klarer de det kunststykket at de fremstår som et "alternativ" i media.
anonym,
Og de får ingen :)
Nina,
FrP rir som vanlig to hester. En for å tekkes "vanlige folk" og en for å tekkes ekstremistene.
Amy,
You ain't seen nothing yet ;)
Men hjelper det å være saklig? Neppe. Verden vil manipuleres, og verden foretrekker REMA-modellen: Det enkleste...
Fred Rune,
Jeg har ingen tro på handling, og jeg tror at det alltid vil være et mindretall som ikke lar seg overbevise om noe som helst når de først har gjort seg opp en mening.
Men det er alltids en mulighet for at noen på gjerdet ihvertfall forstår poenget, og det er eneste sjanse til å få igang forandring. En liten sjanse, men dog.
Personlig har jeg strengt tatt ikke tro på at det kan skje noe før det er for sent. Men jeg er sta som et esel ;)
Stao pao Helge, superblogg fra Tou.
Da e`kkja nåkken så e liiika go!
Takk, takk.
Da fikk jeg energi til å holde det gående :)
Legg inn en kommentar