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

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

That there’s a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was that all about? How say thus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Die Hard. He is quoting Die Hard.

In 2008.

The stupidity is incandescent.