News24

Science under fire from 'doubters'

2012-03-30 08:30

Paris - Scientists are facing an uphill battle to warn the public about pressing issues due to dissenters in their ranks who intentionally sow uncertainty, says a US historian.

These naysayers - some of whom are paid by interest groups - have helped undermine action on vital problems despite evidence of the need to respond, said Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego.

They sap convictions by endlessly questioning data, dismissing experimental innovation, stressing uncertainties and clamouring for more research, she said. Over the last half-century, they have helped weaken legislative action or brake political momentum on tobacco, acid rain, protection of the ozone layer and climate change.

"This strategy is so clever and effective," Oreskes said in an interview this week in Paris to promote a French translation of Merchants of Doubt, a book she co-authored with California Institute of Technology historian Erik Conway.

"It takes something which is an essential part of science - healthy scepticism, curiosity - and turns it against itself and makes it corrosive."

Doubt

Oreskes's book traces the starting point of professional science sceptics to when big tobacco companies were facing the first clear evidence that smoking caused cancer.

An internal memo, written by a Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp executive in 1969, spelt out the goal of weakening this link with expert help.

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy," according to the document, now placed in a US public archive.

Oreskes said a blatant example today was the sowing of doubt about global warming.

A "denial campaign" started to take root in the US just before the Earth Summit of 1992 and amplified in the run-up to negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, she said.

"They don't have to prove that they're right. They don't have to prove that there's no global warming," she said.

"They simply have to raise doubts and questions, because if they can raise doubts and questions, then they can say, 'Well, since the science is not settled,' they allege, 'therefore it would be premature to act on it.' And so they delay action and avoid the kind of actions they would like to avoid."

Evidence

The tactic has been so successful that climate denialism is now firmly anchored in the higher reaches of US politics, said Oreskes.

"Major Republican [Party] leaders say in public that they believe it's a hoax. This is a very shocking state of affairs, and particularly from a party that once upon a time was considered to be more scientific and more environmental than the Democrats."

Oreskes was scathing about some US media which believed that story "balance" meant giving equal weight to opposing scientific views - even if one opinion was backed only by a small minority in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.

According to Oreskes, scientists who push climate uncertainty are not necessarily hired guns, although "some of them get money, either directly through the fossil-fuel industry or indirectly through intermediaries".

"But I don't actually think money is the primary motivation. I think it's political, ideological, it's [the desire for] attention and sometimes it's narcissistic too."

For mainstream scientists, many of these full-time dissenters are time-wasters or intellectually valueless, she said.

"These people don't do work, they don't collect data. Instead, they just criticise other people's work. And then, when they make those criticisms, they don't take them to the scientific community for scrutiny. They publish it in The Wall Street Journal, which is not a scientific journal."

Comments
  • E=MC2 - 2012-03-30 09:00

    How do we not know that the bulk of scientists aren’t being funded to be prophets of doom in sowing seeds of panic & destruction & the ones "sowing uncertainty" aren’t telling the truth?

      robert.cerff - 2012-03-30 09:25

      @E=MC2: Perfect example of the arugment working both ways I reckon. Also as far as I know... and I may be wrong, "climate change" is very real. It gets hotter and colder (we're getting colder at the moment), those who denial the "climate change" model do so not on temprature readings but on the cause. Again... just more FUD I reckon.

      gordcragg - 2012-03-30 09:28

      The extent of dishonesty, fabrication, immorality and conspiracy this would require would be unprecedented and it is extremely ignorant and unrealistic to believe such nonsense. The scientific method is transparent and robust, and there is no need for anyone to believe anything for which sufficient evidence is not available. @E=MC2, unless you are being sarcastic you sound like a conspiracy theorist of the looniest degree. Those "sowing uncertainty" always have an agenda whereas science as a whole does not.

      gordcragg - 2012-03-30 10:04

      @SPC - That is why I would always trust the consensus of the entire scientific community (which has been overwhelmingly reached with regards to evolution and climate change) rather than some fringe individuals that fall into tiny minorities, have agendas and are unable to get their research published.

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 10:23

      @E=MC2: "How do we not know that the bulk of scientists aren’t being funded to be prophets of doom in sowing seeds of panic & destruction & the ones "sowing uncertainty" aren’t telling the truth?" How does one know that the 97% of climate scientists, actively publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, that say that there is a link between human activity and current climatic change, are telling the truth? Well, their claims are backed up by forensic scientific evidence and based on physical principles that are VERY well understood. Their published papers on the issue have been scrutinized by experts.

      Paul - 2012-03-30 10:49

      Scientists come up with many theories that they premote as rock solid facts, only to flip flop on their theories when it suits them here is a intresting read on some of these scientists who were scare mongering us back in the 1970's about the coming ice age, some of these scientists are now leading the global warming theory ... with scientists like these one can only but question their work on global warming. Here's a Excerpt:Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media. link : http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims I think we should question some of these scientific THEORIES much more vigurously !!! Especially EVOLUTION !!! ROCK SOLID they say ...BS ..I say !!!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 10:59

      @Paul: The link you provide is to a website that does not base its claims on peer reviewed research. It is therefore not credible. In any case, you are just repeating argument that has been debunked infinitely many times. Perhaps you should see the link below: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm as opposed to: link : http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

      John - 2012-03-30 12:52

      The precautionary principle itself is a catch 22 argument. It entails giving no proof the same standing as actually having positive proof. In essence it makes a negative a positive which we all know you can never prove a negative. By using this principle we might as well all just kill ourselves as chance living with possible threats that might harm us. Its actually created to let the nazis claim whatever they want and get away with it! Its use must be destroyed as its led to total destruction of the scientific process trying to create proof where none exists to begin with,hense the mountain of evidence we hear the nazis preach all over the place without actually being held to any proof at all! The principle itself cannot stand, it means an end to all we hold dear TRUTH. Without truth we have no meaning,we have no future,we have no life,no culture. We have only created hazzards that never existed,a culture defeated by fanaticism and led by radical nut cases passing laws based upon NOTHING! It gives basis to outlawing anything based upon nothing,it lowers the standard of proof in court to that of hearsay evidence to now convict!

      John - 2012-03-30 12:53

      How did it happen,quite simply ENVIROMENTALISM! Precaution as Customary Law The question whether the precautionary principle is a principle of customary international law has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the principle’s inclusion in the Rio Declaration. http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/17/2/82.pdf Rio Declaration on Environment and Development The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, Yes indeed the precautionary principle is an intregal part of GLOBA GOVERNANCE and well taking over the world! The UN must be destroyed

      Paul - 2012-03-30 13:24

      @Ernst I see you put great value on "peer reviewed reseach" my excerpt states this... "fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media." So their work was peer reviewed or are you saying to me that it wasn't? Ernst ... did the scientists predict a coming "ice age" in the 70's ...yes or no ? If yes .... when can we expect it?, before or after global warming? You see, we need to know , should we be shoping for shorts and T-shirts or Skiing outfits ??? Ernst your rejection of my link due to its source is weak , I read your link and could say the same about it , it's a site set up for the sole purpose of backing up scientists claims. your site claims that the media premoted the ice age theory and only 7 scientific papers predicted a ice age, while 42 papers predicted global warming , so why did we only start to hear about global warming in the 1990's .... are you saying that the media ...all media are biased and were premoting the minority view? After 10 plus years of global warming I feel and bet the data will back me up that our summer this year was quite mild and I forecast a really cold winter ... we all entitled to our opinions...even scientist... and yes scientist do not allways get it right...not that they'd admit it !

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 14:37

      @Paul: " I see you put great value on "peer reviewed reseach" my excerpt states this... "fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media." So their work was peer reviewed or are you saying to me that it wasn't?" Science has evolved since the 1970's. The papers in the 1970's were based on the best technology that existed at the time. They did not have sophisticated satellites that measured the energy imbalances in the atmosphere, powerfull computer modelling tech etc. Yet, the majority of papers published at this time predicted warming due to increase in CO2. Note once again that all these papers were based on the best technology that existed at the time. So I dont know what your point is. "Ernst your rejection of my link due to its source is weak , I read your link and could say the same about it , it's a site set up for the sole purpose of backing up scientists claims." Its not weak, it's true. The website you base your information on perpetuates the same climate myths that have been debunked countless times. 98% of climate scientists, actively publishing in prestigious journals agree that there is a link between human activity and current climatic changes. Denying science and trivializing a serious issue only shows what an ignorant fool you are.

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 14:49

      @Paul: "After 10 plus years of global warming I feel and bet the data will back me up that our summer this year was quite mild and I forecast a really cold winter ... we all entitled to our opinions...even scientist... and yes scientist do not allways get it right...not that they'd admit it !" A classic example of somebody that doesnt understand the difference between climate and weather. Globally, average temeratures are going up. That doesnt mean you are not going to have cold days. Your argument is like saying: Last night the sun didnt shine, therefore the sun isnt working. "Ernst your rejection of my link due to its source is weak , I read your link and could say the same about it , it's a site set up for the sole purpose of backing up scientists claims. your site claims that the media premoted the ice age theory and only 7 scientific papers predicted a ice age, while 42 papers predicted global warming , so why did we only start to hear about global warming in the 1990's .... are you saying that the media ...all media are biased and were premoting the minority view?" Does the site you are pointing to provide citations to peer reviewed research?

      Paul - 2012-03-30 15:00

      @Meme ... back with your insults ...The Great MEME has spoken ... anyone who disagrees with his ALL KNOWING ROCK SOLID FACTS ...is ignorant , living in the dark ages .... Meme when challenge to bring your facts you run off to another article ...to dish out your insults ... you are a weak little man , your debating skills are non-existent, your knowledge of science leaves much to be desired, basically you're a shallow person with not much to offer these debates besides your insults, ridicule and sarcasm ...A MENTAL WEAKLING!!! Meme for weeks now I've challenged you to bring your facts ...THE ROCK SOLID ones you claim to have .... I' still waiting Meme ... you full of hot air no wonder you look down on us ignorant fools with disgust .... Meme if you can't add value to the debate ...why don't you JUST SHUT UP ...FOOL!!!

      Paul - 2012-03-30 15:51

      @ernst I've heard that one before ..."Science has evolved since the 1970's" and it won't be the last time .... in 30 or 40 years time guys like you will still be using it ...only then it will be to explain away why global warming never materialised ...hmmmm ..ahhhh ...Science has EVOLVED since the 2010's !!1 By the way that ice age that they predicted was also due to increased CO2 levels. As for your climate vs weather rant ... I was not referring to 1 day but the whole year, you say that globally the weather heated up this year Europe and North America had one of the coldest years winters on record , you see I think scientists gert it wrong too ...like most of us , only we never hear them admit to it ...throughout the earths history earth has experienced warmer and colder periods , but now it our fault ... fossil fuels , volcanic eruptions have added millions of tons more CO2 to the atmosphere over the years than humans will ever add. Ernst what caused previous fluctuations in earths climate ...please explain it to this dimwit and supply ROCK SOLID PROOF please ! Then tell me what makes you think that this warming you say is fact is different from those others! Imagine being a scientist now days, if you were to go against your peers theories, do you think that you'd be getting any grant monies or being promoted ? Judging from the way you and FOOLS like Meme insult anyone who holds a diverse opinion form yours ...I THINK NOT yet a BRAVE 2% have !!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 16:32

      @Paul: " I've heard that one before ..."Science has evolved since the 1970's" and it won't be the last time .... in 30 or 40 ye...." The science regarding manmade global warming has evolved in the sense that it has become stronger as technology has improved. Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since the 70's, so this will obviously have an effect on outcomes. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses is going to effect on the climate. The planet is going to heat up. Basic physical principles. Deny them if you wish. You cannot explain this away...sorry mate. "Imagine being a scientist now days, if you were to go against your peers theories, do you think that you'd be getting any grant monies or being promoted ? Judging from the way you and FOOLS like Meme insult anyone who holds a diverse opinion form yours ...I THINK NOT yet a BRAVE 2% have !!" Science is not a democracy. You have to provide evidence to back up your claims. If you do not agree with your peers you must provide sound scientific evidence to disprove them. Continue...

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 16:43

      @Paul continue: " only we never hear them admit to it ...throughout the earths history earth has experienced warmer and colder periods , but now it our fault ... fossil fuels , volcanic eruptions have added millions of tons more CO2 to the atmosphere over the years than humans will ever add. Ernst what caused previous fluctuations in earths climate ...please explain it to this dimwit and supply ROCK SOLID PROOF please !" The climate reacts to whatever the dominant force is at the time. Humans are the current dominant force. The carbon emitted by human activity has a different signature than natural carbon, so its easy to determine what humans emitt as opposed to nature. Greenhouse gas concentrations are going up and if this issue does not get tackled soon it will continue to go up at a very fast rate.

  • Stephen - 2012-03-30 09:22

    There's people that just don't want to know the truth, it scares them too much, they want to live in the little fantasy world they built around them, you can put Christians and Muslims at the top of this list. “I don’t care what you show me, or prove to me, I won’t change my mind”

      Carl - 2012-03-30 13:30

      sure, the atheists are the ones that have got it all together.....

      Carl - 2012-03-30 13:39

      possibly the pantheists too...maybe as long as you don't include that personal God clan..don't know what happens there but taking that jump suddenly seems to be occasioned by a total retreat into "a little fantasy world"...

      arne.verhoef - 2012-04-01 19:09

      Preach stephen, preach

  • J-Man - 2012-03-30 09:37

    Money, Politics and Religion will ruin this Planet.

      Stephen - 2012-03-30 09:49

      Were running out of time to fix these things, such a shame, we could have gone to the stars.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-03-30 09:51

    You reap what you sow as they say. science for all its good has been proven time and again to be selective in its published results. The tobacco issue being just one of the half truth issues that as stated has moved public support away from the scientific community. While I cannot deny that smoking causes cancer, the failure by the scientific community to add that the cancer causing ingredients are mostly from the chemicals used to flavor and treat the tobacco, or that very few of the published toxins found in cigarettes are actually found in the tobacco plant. The other big point of contention is that it has been proven that diesel fumes cause cancer just as readily and that current international smoke generation by diesel engines far outstrips the smoke of cigarettes. The second hand smoke debate is also destroyed by this fact.Until the scientific community as a whole starts releasing all the information obtained from tests etc they will simply by omission give people justifiable grounds to believe that scientific findings in respect of these matters will be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Incidents like the Japanese nuclear meltdown and the obvious lies that were told in respect of the true extent of the damage and rate of radioactive leakage also paint the entire scientific community in poor light, most saying that if they can lie about that what else are they lying about?

      gordcragg - 2012-03-30 10:16

      @ludlowj - You make the huge mistake of blaming the scientific community for information that was released or censored by politicians and corporations. The only reason we know that smoking causes cancer and what ingredients are more harmful is because scientists have released and published research. The only reason we know the true extent of damage and harm caused the nuclear meltdown is because research was done by unbiased scientists and released. Published scientific results are not selective! As long as the research conforms to basic scientific standards and procedures it can be guaranteed to be published, no matter how many people or institutions it upsets. Science, when unimpeded by politics, greed and money, is without contention the most useful tool we have at our disposal for revealing truth.

      John - 2012-03-30 13:41

      JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov. uk/pdfs/cotstatement tobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

      gordcragg - 2012-03-30 15:00

      John, I'm trying to figure out what the point of your comment is?

      John - 2012-03-30 15:42

      Simple there is no proof of causation to smoking for anything. If you note the story states denialists of tobacco induced disease......proof baby there is none!

  • mawethu.bilibana - 2012-03-30 10:24

    'Publish or perish' if you don't published mediocre studies based on your funders interest you will not get enough funds. They simple not pursuing any scientific basic knowledge, they trying to achieve social constructed credibility. So, if you trying to be radical or pursue any scientific based knowledge in your research you will not get very far!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 10:48

      "'Publish or perish' if you don't published mediocre studies based on your funders interest you will not get enough funds." This is a sweeping statement made by a person that has probably never published a scientific paper in his life. A climate scientist with expertise in modelling and statistics will earn way more money working for banks or large corporations than working for a university.

      mawethu.bilibana - 2012-03-30 11:19

      'This is a sweeping statement made by a person that has probably never published a scientific paper in his life' I'm sorry Ernst! my comment on news24 wasnt about achieving some social science credibility as you probably trying to achieve. And this article used climate changes as example of how mediocre scientific researchers are currently doing ...I'm just wondering, have you done any work on climate changes? Please next time discuss the problem not me!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 12:23

      @OutlineScience: I have published scientific papers in international peer reviewed journals. I am not a climate scientist. My point is that I know how the peer review system works and there is no way you can get away with publishing mediocre work in prestigious journals. "And this article used climate changes as example of how mediocre scientific researchers are currently doing ..." I dont understand what you are saying. The article deals with the fact that a tiny minority of scientists take money from oil, coal and gas, to sow doubt about manmade global warming.

      John - 2012-03-30 13:58

      Sir richard Doll also took handsome grants and payments from big corporations in the energy fields. He also took money from the chemical companies.....For those who dont remember Doll was the one who purportedly connected smoking and lung cancer thru epidemiology! His problem, inhalers versus non-inhalers amomg other sub-group problems. To this day theres no direct PROOF of smoking causing any disease or ailment in smokers!

      mawethu.bilibana - 2012-03-30 15:08

      http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html! 'minority of scientists take money from oil, coal and gas' hence peer reviews are people too! My argument is that, theres number of studies end up in prestige peer review journals that contain mediocre scientific evidence. I have no doubt about the process of peer review (thus same reason people like me never published a scientific paper in his life). My concern though theres some unethical issues within scientific societies such as unqualified reviewers; editors who seem to allows mediocre studies to be published in a respectable journal which then misled the public. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science!

      Grant - 2012-04-01 09:23

      //I have published scientific papers in international peer reviewed journals. I am not a climate scientist. My point is that I know how the peer review system works and there is no way you can get away with publishing mediocre work in prestigious journals// Please do an article on this, its all too often that people on these pages seem to think their opinions hold the same weight as published scientific work.

      Mike - 2012-04-01 11:19

      It's embarrassing reading comments where people with no scientific knowledge have strong opinions about matters of which they know nothing! As far as science goes you have no right to an opinion unless it is an informed opinion, otherwise what you say is Bibble babble. I am amazed at how people promote their ignorance and wear it like a badge of honour. Do you people also comment on medical pages and argue with medical professionals, or with engineers etc????

  • Ernst - 2012-03-30 10:39

    This is what I have been saying all along. These special interest groups in the fossil feul sector have spent millions of dollars misinforming the public on manmade global warming. Everytime there is an article on manmade global warming, the same denier arguments always turn up (i.e. Its the sun, Climate changed before etc.). These orginizations have conducted smear campaings against climate scientists (i.e. Climategate etc) with the aim to destroy their careers and to intimidate them, simply because the findings are inconvenient to their greedy and selfish ways. 9 independent investigations found absolutely no academic wrongdoing on the part of these scientists (Michael mann etc.). Did the media cover the findings of these investigations as vociferously as when the "fake scandal" broke? No. Do manmade global warming deniers even bother to read the report of these investigations? No. The fact is: ignoring the warnings of scientists and denying science is very dangerous and foolish.

      John - 2012-03-30 13:52

      I guess your emails are missing............globall warming debunked!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 14:39

      Funny, i hope you dont have any children.

      John - 2012-03-30 15:44

      Plenty and they dont get edumicated in public schools! Hense they wont get politically correct brain washing.

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 16:45

      @John: I will not trivialize an issue that will effect them negatively in the future.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 18:47

      Ernst I need to warn you, only because your knowledge about the discipline of Astronomy is dangerously low, does not mean everyone is uninformed about this science. You will sound much smarter if you rather not say anything about the sun and its irradiation behaviour at all. Since the solar maxima we are currently observing is a fact and not a theory. It is measured with great accuracy. Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715. Sunspots almost completely disappeared. During those years, at least in Europe, winters were especially harsh. In the winter of 1694-1695. That period is what is generally known as the “little ice age” This was due to a drop of 3.5W/m2 radiation from the sun. Now we are heading toward the solar maxima again for the last 80 years. Currently solar activities is the highest in more than a 1000 years. With the sun being the only source of thermal energy to the earth I must add that only a fool will entirely dismiss solar activities effect on climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg While you are at it, would you mind tell me which fossil burning industries was most responsible for the global warming episodes that followed each of the 5 major ice ages during the last 560 million years?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 18:51

      Here is a quote from wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. A causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters has recently been made using data from the NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment which shows that solar UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought, and a UK scientific team published in the Nature Geoscience journal a link that ties this variability to terrestrial climate impacts in the form of warmer winters in some places and colder winters in others.[3] The winter of 1708–9 was extremely cold.[4]

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:39

      @Marius: You are perpetuating the same climate myths that have been debunked countless times. Perhaps you would like to contact the prestigious institutions listed below and tell them that they are all wrong and you, a genius engineer, is right: Continue.

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:39

      Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Continue:

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:39

      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:40

      Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences

  • stampalex - 2012-03-30 13:39

    Well, as Chairman of the Flat Earth Society, I also have doubts. And of course paranoid fears that one day we'll all fall off the edge. Hey you! Stop fidgeting, you're rocking the boat! The earth is not a ball... Balls are for bitche... I mean beaches. Check those findings again!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 14:40

      Dont forget to pay your membership fees.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-03-30 13:46

    MOBO, With respect I agree to disagree, the scientific community as a whole must accept responsibility for the failings of all, as they say for evil to survive all it takes is for good men or in this case good scientists to say nothing. I am sure than their are many good honest and dedicated scientist out there which means that my statement is stereotypical at best. That however does not distract from or make my grantedly generalized assertion any less true. I also put it to you that governments do not publish scientific research, and although they may censor local news content etc, they do not have the ability to censor research other than through the scientific review board which must then accept complicity in any cover up.

  • John - 2012-03-30 13:48

    Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one

      veritas.odium.paret - 2012-03-30 15:57

      Lol, you should be a spin doctor like that guy in the movie Thank You For Smoking.

  • veritas.odium.paret - 2012-03-30 15:54

    Hahaha, reminds me of that guy from the movie Thank You For Smoking: "Erhardt von Grupten Mundt. They found him in Germany ... He's been testing the link between nicotine and lung cancer for 30 years and hasnt found any conclusive results. The man's a genious, he could disprove gravity."

  • Paul - 2012-03-30 16:34

    @ernst continued ... of the other 98% you mention , I think at least 40% don't support this theory but bow to peer pressure and don't voice an opinion. Ernst .... thinking that science only has one opinion shows what an ignorant fool you are ... why don't you and Meme get a room, in that room you guys cam massage each others egos ... oh we have all the answers !!

      Ernst - 2012-03-30 18:08

      Ernst .... thinking that science only has one opinion shows what ".....ignorant fool you are ... why don't you and Meme get a room, in that room you guys cam massage each others egos ... oh we have all the answers !!" Lol. Funny comment.

  • Tony Lapson - 2012-03-31 23:38

    Anyone who thinks that 7 billion people and all their waste and extra livestock, does not affect this planet, is a fool.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 18:06

      I agree 7 billion people have a great effect, however in biomass bacteria make up 5500 times more mass than people on this earth, so I could also say that anyone who thinks that bacteria’s does not have a greater effect must be a fool as well. You see how easily very logical facts people could believe in can be flipped around by adding more facts. So, scientifically correct theories can easily be flipped around by adding more facts to them, or neglecting facts. This is where the controversies between disciplines come in.

  • marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 16:35

    I don’t think there is anything unusual about scientists scrutinising each others conclusions a thoughts when it gets THEORIES. I would agree with the article more if the issue was about people questioning facts and laws of science but theories are dynamic by nature. I don’t know if there are many of these people trying to contradict to question facts or laws in science since most books I red from top scientist have a complete different view than that of the general media in anyway. What concerns this article is, since she refer to smoking causes cancer, ozone, climate change which are all backed by theories. I red a paper written by the WHO/CDC they are concerned about the media for making their own conclusions that smoking causes cancer while they was still battle to gather evidence for it. Small trends, staggering amounts of variances and variables made it difficult to prove anything. It is much simpler for the media and anti-tobacco organisations to look at statistical correlation where the real proof is much more complicated.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 16:36

      The most popular statistical method in this field suggest that an increase in x and a increase in y means x is the cause of y. This makes as much sense as to say: “the more churches you have, the more criminals you will have.” However for people involved in science get alarmed by all the nonsense theories. But the people doing the real science are the ones who are least likely to say much about it. Because true, honest evidence are generally very scares and hard to prove. Over eager propaganda and conclusions is how quick to make. The media and non-profit organisations are experts with that.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 16:36

      The physical existence for all the things the article mention is fact. It is fact like gravity is. It’s usually the theories that explain these facts, which are scrutinised by so called “sceptics”, these doubters are nothing but independent scientists, scientist who are not employed by the mainstream. Often engineering faculties who are not directly affected by the politics or business of the subject take independent views since engineering is not a media, or political game, the discipline is very serous and need to stick strictly to facts. And render all the commotion and propaganda as nothing more than a unverified hypothesis. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; Member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994 to 2000. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/climate%20change%20science%20is%20an%20unverified%20hypothesis.pdf

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 16:36

      The ones that pay attention to uncertainties, facts that are left out conveniently, or statistical models that might be at error are scientists who’s opportunities and threats are not directly affected by the issue. There less emotionally involved and often take a more realistic approach to the issue without making conclusions. There are many Dr’s and Prof’s who are eager to make a headline or to get a book sold or to get a promotion. The thing is with science, if we openly accept all theories in the way religion always forced us just to accept what is foretold, then we will be nothing other than the people who where dictated by religion before. “don’t ask, just believe” the number one thing to hold real science back. As much as there are critics, doubters and denials, which ever you want to call it, as much is there scientists who fall in love with their theories, who have something to prove, who are over eager to draw conclusions from trends and correlation and then publish it as conclusive facts.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 16:37

      Then there are dishonest scientists who go out of their way to find data to fit a desired outcome, scientist who is funded to prove pros-or cons in both sides of the coin. Like with the Climate Gate Scandal. We see political pressure on scientist, business pressure and this makes it very difficult in such an environment to trust all publications. Then you also find where facts are published by non-scientific journalists, where business and profit is involved and where political growth is stimulated. These environments spells CAUTION. Therefore independent schools of thought and research is absolutely essential. Other disciplines and interest groups need to be involved. The idea of some interest groups to suggest “if you don’t support my theory then you are against humanity” can be disastrous for science. Science was created by open minded people who didn’t believe all they was told by the church and their rulers. The same type of enthusiasm is now depicted as anti-scientific by globalist powers. Real scientist will never just settle with what they are told, they will always question, analyse, look for errors and look for improvement of theories, they will debate and reason around it and try their best to avoid political or business influence.

      carolinebza - 2012-04-02 18:59

      Marius: You don't seem to know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory - the first few paragraphs of this page give a simple but good explanation: http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/introscience.htm. In this sense (masses of confirming evidence), AGW is an extremely strong theory, estimated by the president of the US National Academy to be on a par with the theory that vaccines prevent illness. That is what scientific consensus means, not some sort of bizarre conspiracy between, amongst others, climate scientists, IBM, the US Dept of Defence and Greenpeace (all of whom accept the theory and are acting on it). There are no competing theories worthy of attention. A very good way to get an idea of whether there are really any serious competing hypotheses for AGW is to go to one of the big denier blogs (eg WUWT) and just count the number of competing explanations they toss around. None of them have a body of evidence behind them. What you'll find is a fragmented and disconnected collection of arguments, rhetoric and quote-mining, which taken together are somehow supposed to prove a vast body of very thoroughly reviewed work to be wrong. You might also want to check whether they routinely reference (I won't use cite in this context) papers which have long since been rebutted, without bothering to inform their readership. (Soon and Baliunas 2003 is a good case in point but there are others.)

      carolinebza - 2012-04-02 19:10

      (ctd) So there are a few maverick scientists in this grouping. There always are. Most of them, instead of turning out to be Galileo, just turn out to be plain wrong. You can establish this for yourself simply by reading the papers and rebuttals - if you're an engineer you should be able to follow. There's a huge difference between finding a valid error in a paper, which the authors will always accept, and just blindly bashing away trying to promote your world-view long after it's been shown to be wrong. The latter is what the climate science contrarians are doing - this is not skepticism but the opposite - bigotry. "The most popular statistical method in this field suggest that an increase in x and a increase in y means x is the cause of y." I assume you understand what you've written here and that you're accusing climate scientists of confusing correlation with causation. Could you post a link to an example of a peer-reviewed and unrebutted paper in the climate science field which makes this mistake? It's pretty elementary. In fact the chemical fingerprinting of CO2 as the cause is extremely well established and has been for decades - very interesting video here on how little the basic understanding has had to change over the last few decades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OmpiuuBy-4s (assuming you're actually interested in the science, of course).

      carolinebza - 2012-04-02 19:15

      And finally, if you don't accept the value of a strong theory based on years of work done by observation and statistical inference, then perhaps you should stop taking all medication. What sort of computational techniques do you think are used to analyse the data in clinical trials?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:32

      Carolinebza Thanks for your concern about my understanding about Hypophesis and theory. I’m not sure where I lead you thinking that I don’t understand the difference. I cant comment on to much you said, I had a bit of a hard time to figure out what you are trying to tell me with it all but here and there I picked up on some stuff. About statistical methods, If you would just spend some time reading my comment properly, you should be able to tell that when I wrote "The most popular statistical method in this field suggest that an increase in x and a increase in y means x is the cause of y." I was writing in the context of the WHO/CDC who complained about the media and anti tobacco groups making their own assumptions for propaganda from the data without understanding the statistics that complicates matters. Media running with the facts while the actual scientists are still figuring the real facts out. But if you wish to talk climate science then lets talk AGW. I understand AGW as an theory that suggest humans made global warming or form the majority factor as it is measured today. Let me introduce a few facts that you might not recognise in your “strong AGW theory” which deserves a place in any “climate change” theory as they are important factors and well known facts.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:34

      The following I will state without references to make it shorter, it will all be conclusive facts found no ware other than the academia, popular science authors, wikipedia and NASA, National Geographic ext. If you find something unbelievable I will provide reliable references at your request. Climate Gate Scandal- IPCC members caught: November 2009 a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. The documents and emails was between Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Here are some of the facts and quotes found in the documents

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:35

      a. Discussing how to prevent the freedom of information act of being used to get hold of their climate data. b. Kevin Trenberth stated "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t". c. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” d. “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” e. “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:36

      3) Particle pollution results in global dimming; despite the large amounts of CO2 produced by volcanoes, smoke from volcanoes have a cooling effect. 4) Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715. Sunspots almost completely disappeared as the solar minima showed a 3.5W/m2 drop in solar radiation. This period is today known as the “little ice age”. I emphasise the effect of solar cycles on climate. 5) The sun is currently heading towards a solar maxima, for the last 80 years. Solar activities are the highest in more than an 1000 years. 6) All thermal energy on earth comes from the sun, therefore any changes in solar radiation will have an direct effect on temperatures and climate. 7) 2/3 of the earth surface is water, water absorb about ¼ of the atmospheres CO2, sea water contains if water temperature increase, so does the absorption capacity decrease. This cause a reactive rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 in oceans is called the ocean carbon cycle. 8) The ocean ability to absorb or release CO2 is a major factor in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The ocean regulate CO2 in the atmosphere. 9) Water vapour also increase as water temperature increase. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and there is 3 times water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. measurements of water vapour in USA showed a steady increase since 1980 from 3.8ppmv to 4.8ppmv 10) Mars and Pluto showed increasing temperatures. It might hard to measure on giant plants since they produce their own heat.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:37

      11) If all the bacteria on earth is placed on the surface it will form a 15m thick layer around the earth. Bacteria respirate and produce CO2 and methane. 12) Bacteria’s biomass is 5500 times more than the entire human population on earth 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere “Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year” 14) 500 million years ago CO2 was 25 times more in the atmosphere than now. No industries existed then. 15) 100 million years ago sea water level was 250m higher than now. 16) Between 18000 – 8000 years ago sea level rise with 120m, in the last 8000 years only with about 5m. current rise in sea level is very small compared to the rest of earths history. 17) For the last 560 million years, about 60% of the time the eath was on average 25°C. it is now 15°C as it still recovers from the last ice age 18000 years ago when it was 10°C 18) After every one of the 5 major ice ages, there was natural global warming to recover us from it. 19) Most of the earths existence it never had ice caps, this we see now is what is left behind from the last ice age 18000 years ago and has been melting ever since. 20) The rate of sea level rise for the last 8000 years was the lowest in the last 18000 years.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:37

      21) NASA remote sensing on satellites have showed between 2000 and 2011 that UN climate models are completely wrong by using hockey stick regression to extrapolate future predictions. The simulations neglected the amount of heat radiated into space. A rather crucial factor to neglect won’t you say? Especially for top scientists who do peer reviews. 22) Around 1998 to 2000 the warming was at its worst. Never have the same temperatures been observed. 23) NASA made another discovery recently to measure the cooling effect CO2 has when absorbing cosmic radiation from the sun and then reradiating it as infrared. CO2 also has a cooling effect and not just the greenhouse effect. 24) Professor Nasif Nahle was a global warming alarmist along other scientist, now a AGW denier as he works on the new observations about CO2 as a coolant in the Atmosphere If you need any references and more precise values, feel free to ask.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-02 21:39

      I do not dismiss global warming, I dismiss AGW and know that humans are a minority factor in climate change. I agree that humans have some effect but the main effect we observe is due to nature. I believe that more scientific studies will find nothing but that. Climate change will in a few years be buried next to the hole in the ozone layer where we all would have died. Therefore I consider climate change as natural and AGW nothing but a catalyst for business and Globalization. But if AGW make you feel any better about paying carbon taxes, then good for you. Oh and incase the author accuse me of being paid by an interest group like oil companies. Nope I only love my science with a passion, so do I also seek the truth and can’t be force fed with garbage. Secondly the people who are giving these scientist uphill are scientists.

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:32

      @Marius.dumas: So the orestigious scientific institutions listed below are all wrong and you are right? Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Continued:

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:32

      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

      Ernst - 2012-04-03 23:33

      Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 07:57

      Ernst, I doubt if they or any of them are wrong about their facts. Nor are any of the facts I mention at error. The facts I mentioned are widely accepted facts. It's up to you if you wish to ignore it or not. Since AGW is religion to you. I’m sure you would wish to ignore it along with many other scientists. However there are many scientists and institutions who wish not to ignore it.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 08:49

      ERNST American Institute of Professional Geologists In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials: The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society. My Opinion: they acknowledge that climate change is happening, but make it very clear that “climate change will occur regardless of the cause” this means. With or without humans, climate change will continue.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 08:50

      Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences The science of global climate change is still evolving and our understanding of this vital Earth system is not as developed as is the case for other Earth systems such as plate tectonics. What is known with certainty is that regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future... The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 08:51

      Geological Society of Australia In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change[103] supportive of the IPCC position. However in 2011 the position statement was withdrawn because members contended that they were not consulted by the society's executive in its content and had no approval for its release.The society in 2011 was canvassing members to decide its future stance on this issue.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 09:19

      I went though the statements of a long list of organizations who are for AGW theory, the most statements I have read said nothing more than "humans is a "likely" cause of climate change." None could have state it as a fact. This means, although the organizations support the theory or the cause, there are some uncertainty in their statements. I could not find one who acknowledges it as a fact. While other supporters merely suggest that cutting on carbon emissions could/ should /will reduce the warming effect but also does not make a clear statement that the warming was indeed caused by human activity. The controversy based on facts is very real. The consensus there are is not at the level as one would find with "relativity theory" or other well accepted theirs yet. If there was solid consensus we would not have had this debate right now. But first be sure what you are arguing since there are many different views. It is not just for or against.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 09:23

      Is the actually earth warming or is it only a change in climate for warmer or cooler? Are humans the cause of it? Are humans the only a factor? Does nature have a role to play? Are nature itself less inclined to make such changes? Does solar cycles have an effect on temperature since all our energy comes from the sun? Will reduction in CO2 cool the earth down since there is also a known cooling effect that CO2 offers? Will reduction in particle pollution cool the earth down since particle pollution is known to have a dimming/cooling effect? Should we try to reverse warming or should we rather try to adapt. If we use our resources to stop it, and it fails what resources do we have left to adapt? Regardless of whether organizations give their support to global warming programs or not. All organization has different “combinations” of how they view the factors of climate change. There will be very few organizations to say no please lets continue pollution so I understand if most will give their support to reduce pollution. But very few will dare to say humans created global warming as a fact. However I have very little interest to debate the politics of the environment. Im only interested in the facts and AGW is not on that list of facts.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 10:01

      Here are a bunch of head lines about NASA, and also quotes from NASA. NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong (28 Jul 2011) New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism (27 Jul, 2011) NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (26 January 2012) “La Niña/El Niño/solar cycles” NASA: Particles in Upper Atmosphere Slow Down Global Warming (25 Jul 2011) “None of the climate models, including those used by the IPCC” Forbes: New NASA data shows diminished global warming threat Latest NASA Data Confirms That Global Warming Is Not Unequivocal, Not Irreversible, Not Accelerating, Not Significant News Flash: NASA Climate Data Challenges Global Warming Alarms (29 Jul 2011) “NASA satellite data show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, according to a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.” Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study (29 Jul 2011) New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism (27 Jul 2011) NASA website: http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/ NASA: Unresolved questions about Earth's climate Forcings -Solar Irradiance “climate scientists do not have much confidence that they understand longer-term solar changes.” -Aerosols, dust, smoke, and soot Feedbacks -Clouds. -Carbon cycle. -Ocean circulation -Precipitation. -Sea level rise.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-04 10:09

      While scientists are still giving opinions, raising uncertainties, studying the area of climate change. The politicians and media are already running with the answers as if it’s all simple. Businesses already figure ways to profit from it. They talk about facts which are far from being called facts. Face it, many fell in love with the AGW theory and close them selves of from any other facts. Science organisations acknowledge their moral duties as well to support global causes. But as for the science in its pure form, it still has a far way to go and many surprises to discover and many questions to answer on its way to a well accepted theory.

  • Zion - 2012-04-06 10:27

    Have been waiting for this article for a long time now. It is seen regularly on NEWS24 comments. My interpretation is it emanates from those no0t so clever and thereby try to score a try for their ego such as the very first comment on this forum. further The laughable Dagga issue is pulled completely out of proportion and yet the protagonists of the weed carry on crudely. Most know very little about the fracking operation yet the mouths are the widest. Ultimately some don't want to believe because it might tax some mental exertion. And tried and tested proofs do not count a mite because they may just prove the existence of truth and may be embarrassing to admit defeat. It is all lies that the climate is getting hotter and scientists are qualified only up to grade 8, Dagga is good for you, Speed is a masculine past time and nobody has been killed by speed, lies, lies and more lies. Albert Einstein is a moron with an IQ of 167 while Richard Dawkins is an absolute cretin with 12 doctorates and dozens of awards to his name so he cannot be a genius. The Antarctic ice shelf is still where it was 6ooo years ago and why now, must it shrink: lies, lies and more lies. Proof is Earth cannot be older than 6000 years.liars. Spacemen built the pyramids and taught the Egyptians how to plant mealies and water the land with a shadoef, doef. Irrigation was not invented then, bunch of spacemen twits. Sorry to end here I must go have my daily dose of cannabis wrapped into a zoll Lies, lies lies.

  • Zion - 2012-04-06 10:37

    Frankly, this is all bullshot or the acme of stupidity.

  • pages:
  • 1