sda2.jpg

May 23, 2008

Big City Lib Busted

This is what the global warming supporters have been reduced to;

Honor system abuser, BigCityLib, aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto reports that he in fact did NOT make the [Oregon Petition Project] list. By his own admission he lied about his background and falsified documents to try to have his name added, but apparently the petition screening process found his deception and denied his application.

Perhaps Murphy should try his hand on getting on the IPCC where the standards are lower.

Posted by Kate at May 23, 2008 2:11 PM
Comments

The link seems to be broken.

It should be --

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-32000-who-say-no-convincing-evidence/

Posted by: Lickmuffin at May 23, 2008 2:21 PM

Shocking! So completely out of character. And he was just turning his life around ...

Posted by: Fenris Badwulf at May 23, 2008 2:22 PM

I'm sure there's an HRC somewhere that could make use of his talents...

Posted by: jcl at May 23, 2008 2:36 PM

Wow! BigCityLib caught [gasp!] LYIN'! Say it ain't so, Big! Say it ain't so!

You think you know somebody... oh, wait.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 23, 2008 2:49 PM

Surprise surprise! Just reading that guys blog shows you the what an Ahole he is. Looks like librano supporters are just as corrupt as the money grubbing, leftarded party.

Posted by: Metal-Militia at May 23, 2008 2:54 PM

You think you know somebody... oh, wait.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 23, 2008 2:54 PM

thanks LM.

Posted by: Kate at May 23, 2008 2:55 PM

Let's make that Big City Fib.
There's got to be an explanation or two forthcoming as to what misunderstandings were at play here.
Lying and Liberals are such strangers. Yeah, right.

Posted by: Liz J at May 23, 2008 2:59 PM

Is Murphy related to Lying Dion? The carbon tax neutral man.

Posted by: mike in Ontario at May 23, 2008 3:13 PM

You know what they say, scratch a liberal and you'll find a moral degenerate underneath the scabies.

Posted by: Warwick at May 23, 2008 3:15 PM

Someone should alert National Newswatch!

Posted by: Kate at May 23, 2008 3:17 PM

Definitely CBC hack/spinner Boag must be sent this information. Imagine his lips would develop quite a pucker.

Posted by: Liz J at May 23, 2008 3:29 PM

Put this one on the Endangering Species list: Spotted Brown Enveloped Fiberal.

Posted by: Shaken at May 23, 2008 3:42 PM

I love it! After all the personal insults he's blithely tossed my way, my day is officially made.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 23, 2008 3:53 PM

Bigcitylib is actually proud he's a liar. He encourages others to lie as well. A true librano.

Posted by: Roy Eappen at May 23, 2008 4:03 PM

Why should that type of behavior from a liberal surprise anyone? Just another case of one of the ME PEOPLE looking for recognition that they are not capable of obtaining legitimately.

Posted by: Western Canadian at May 23, 2008 4:04 PM

BCL tried misrepresentation and bald-faced lying to try to score points for his beliefs -- surprise, surprise. It's so typically liberal. The facts are nothing compared to liberals' superstition. Their line of argument is something like:
Lib: "The science is settled. Two thousand five hundred scientists support our position (in fact they didn't) so we're right and you can't argue with us."
Rational human: "Okay, so here's thirty one thousand scientists who disagree with your position, so there's plenty of room to dispute your contentions."
Lib: "Well, well, science isn't about consensus so that doesn't count. So I'm right anyway."
It's so absurdly childish.
How do you live with yourself BCL? You're obviously not a scientist. You have no thirst for the truth. You have no desire to explore or understand the laws of nature. You seek to deceive, obfuscate, bully, suppress not only the facts but the very process of searching for the truth. Why does the truth hold such terror for you? Are you afraid of what it will do to you or your dark little world? You cling to ignorance the way a drowning man clings to a sinking piece of wreckage, ever tighter the more certainly it drowns him. You embody the worst prejudices of the Inquisition, the superstition of the Salem witch trials, the self righteous arrogance of the Committee for Public Safety.
I can never be like you. I can never understand you. I would suffocate on the fetid fumes of ignorance that seem to sustain you. I shall continue to travel in the fresh air, in the light and the freedom of open minded inquiry. I don't know where it will lead. But therein lies the beauty and the fun. And I'm not in the least bit afraid.

Posted by: DrD at May 23, 2008 4:08 PM

It doesn't matter that he is caught lieing. In Leftardom the ends justify the means. As soon as we all realize that THEY know what is best, we can quit challenging THEM, and then THEY can stop making s**t up. Does anyone truley think that leftards care if their rep's are lieing. Same old same IMO.

Posted by: Play'nWitYoMomma at May 23, 2008 4:14 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't BCL just prove the filtering and vetting process?

He followed the exact same methodologies as a computer security audit. Infiltrate, observe data flow, create false identities, use those identities to crack internal systems, increase the identities privileges.

That he got caught out in creating a false identity proves the soundness of the methodology.

Thanks BCL for what can surely be known as a 'third-party audit'.

Cheers,
lance

Posted by: lance at May 23, 2008 4:15 PM

I always thought of Big City Lib as the Liberal "Fredo Corleone".

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at May 23, 2008 4:17 PM

Hardly surprising...........

Posted by: OMMAG at May 23, 2008 4:17 PM

"I always thought of Big City Lib as the Liberal "Fredo Corleone"."

Poor Fredo "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour....."

Posted by: alamatl at May 23, 2008 4:39 PM

Next week maybe we'll hear that he'd refused to join any club that would have him as a member.

Posted by: Jan at May 23, 2008 5:32 PM

Quel suprise!

SDA regulars are now smiling, knowing that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck but smells like a skunk then it is probably BCL (as they expected).

Posted by: Texas Canuck at May 23, 2008 5:46 PM

What do you expect from people who idolize Michael Moore and any number of propagandists who lie for a "good" cause?

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 23, 2008 6:11 PM

John Cross: Whats your take on the 31,000 scientists that think AGW is horseshit?'~ Bob

Posted by: bob at May 23, 2008 6:14 PM

If you had the resources and put in the leg work and time, I think 100,000 signatures would be possible.

Posted by: bob at May 23, 2008 6:34 PM

BCL is a pain in the neck on many serious climate fora. He'll never show his arse again.

Posted by: RW at May 23, 2008 6:44 PM

BCL has just boosted the credibility of the Oregon petition!@!

Posted by: RW at May 23, 2008 6:47 PM

BCL and most of the so-called Liberal intelligencia consistently show signs of psychopathic behavior. They cannot be shamed because they BELIEVE they are right. There is nothing they will not do to achieve their goals. there is not conscience in their make up, just a blind desire to rule the masses in a most horrid socialist fashion.

They used consensus as an argument for settling the science at IPCC. When real scientists (over 31000 of them on one of the petitions alone) make a claim based on reality and facts, that is a consensus that is worth nothing to them.

Maybe I just have consensus envy.

Big City Lib will laugh off this disgrace like a school child after a failed prank. He is truly disgusting as are they all.

Posted by: John V at May 23, 2008 6:56 PM

"I always thought of Big City Lib as the Liberal "Fredo Corleone"."

I always thought of him as Roscoe from the Dukes of Hazzard or perhaps Herb Tar-lick from WKRP in Yellowknife.

Posted by: Hannibal Lectern at May 23, 2008 7:11 PM

Big City Lib can kiss my conservative ass

Posted by: Brad at May 23, 2008 7:14 PM

"Busted"?

To be "busted", don't you actually have to be, um, "busted"? As in "caught"? As in, when your whole post is about telling the world what you are planning to do and then later that you did it, I'm kinda struggling to see where the "bust" is.

Posted by: Ted at May 23, 2008 7:25 PM

maybe BCL will now do the honerable thing and change his moniker to Big City LIEberal


John V


I think you'v called it correctly


they actually think they are justified in their lying and deceit

Posted by: GYM at May 23, 2008 7:29 PM

I was thinking the exact same thing lance. Leave it to something like BCL to work to undermine the process only to prove the process' very effectiveness.

Posted by: AtlanticJim at May 23, 2008 7:57 PM

Well this is interesting. Not! The National Enquiry thingie would be proud of ya.

Looks like the foolers got fooled by another fooler who was checking out whether the foolers were trying to fool da pipples.

I'm not going to waste much time with this, but the Big City guy appears to have been using an investigative technique to determine the legitimacy of the so called petition. If you read the comments you will find;

bigcitylib (16:03:15) :
Freeman Dyson was famous 50 years ago (if its really him that signed).
C’mon, dude, I sent ‘em a letter consisting of the scientific knowledge I had acquired in 20 minutes of skimming a real science paper. They were willing to send me as many copies of the petition as I wanted to distribute among my “scientist” friends, including the homeless guy that goes by the name of Dr. Von Dickenstein.
And if you wanted to sign the Manhattan Declaration you could have made the request via email. Even easier.

Charles Murray, the guy that owned the Crandall Canyon mine, got his whole family to sign up.
Cmon Anthony, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here.


Go to the link, there's some funny sh*t right thar!

Well I tried to post it this afternoon with the link, but no go. So I guess you will have to look for it

Hugger

Posted by: Greg at May 23, 2008 8:31 PM

This attempt et al is beginning to look more and more like the tactics used in the McCarthy era. As the AGW lobby's case further deteriorates for manifold reasons look for these kind of fabrications and knowingly false interpretations to increase dramatically. When we look back a decade or so from now it seems likely that 2008 will be seen as the year of the tipping point in this struggle for the truth.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at May 23, 2008 8:44 PM

Ted,

RTFA.
If you'd just read the post you'll see that he bragged about lying his way into the group, but in the end his credentials were suspect and was not admitted. He was actually claiming to have achieved something that he didn't... kinda like St. Al claiming that he invented the internet.

He was "busted" telling a lie. Also busted from the list by the credential checkers...

Can we make this any more clear for you?

Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2008 8:48 PM

The values of a Big City Lib:

"I have come to teach you to be like us. How to wear that sneer so it cuts like a surgeon's obsidian blade, and how to smite your ideological enemies with the humor, arrogance, and the smugness that is your birthright as liberals." ... BCL March 2, 2006

He can now add "lies".

Posted by: Sounder at May 23, 2008 8:57 PM

So Liberal, so big city.

A liar and very proud of it.

Posted by: Fred at May 23, 2008 8:58 PM

Hope he left the window cracked in the hummer...ti-guy's gotta be hyperventilating something fierce .......

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at May 23, 2008 10:04 PM

My Father once told me. Your only born with one thing you can call your own . That being your reputation or personnel integrity. Once you lose that, you truly are naked to the world. A small despised thing worth a tiny joke that fades ever more opaque, exposed as worthless by oath or deed.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at May 23, 2008 10:13 PM

Did I hear someone say that BCL was moving out of his mother's basement soon?

Posted by: Paul at May 23, 2008 10:16 PM

Bob: I have never thought much of scientific arguments made from petitions. And (as people on this site have pointed out in the past) the honor system does not have much place in scientific investigations so I do not put a lot of faith in only names.

In specific regards to the OISM petition project I have not read the new paper. But the old OISM paper is one of the first things that I looked at when I developed an interest in AGW and after a careful read of it I found enough flawed arguments that it was a real wake up call.

The main difference between something like this and what is called the consensus position is that this requires no understanding of climate (I took a quick look and many of the signatories are not climatologists but medical doctors.) Compare this to the consensus position which arose by thousands of individual researchers each seeing how their small area of expertise fits into the bigger picture.

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 23, 2008 11:22 PM

---> Compare this to the consensus position

Consensus has nothing to do with real science, Consensus is a term used in those fields like sociology where that is the best you can do.

That is the problem when those from the soft "sciences" get involved in the hard sciences like AGW.

Scientific facts and what you can prove matters.
Consensus is the last refuge as they say.

Posted by: Larry at May 23, 2008 11:32 PM

What consensus position, John? That if nothing else temperature seems to be going up by about a degree per century, modulo solar fluctuations?

I've had it with this, John (not you, this). The science, including not just the science of climatology, but also things like economics, says be calm, be careful, be aware of the laws of unintended consequences. Even if the models and predictions you are in favour of, John, add an extra couple degrees over the next century, which you and I previously discussed and I believe agreed upon some months ago, and which won't happen anyway because we're already changing our technologies and behaviours (US petrol consumption down 5% year on year), there's no good argument to say that your forecast changes will be terrible, and there are good arguments to the effect that the net result will be beneficial.

John, you and I are both, honestly, I think, interested in the actual science here, what I would call if I may personalize it a boyish curiosity as to what's actually going on. But we can't just stop there. We can't just say, the rest of the puzzle doesn't matter. We have to factor into account the human, not just the electromagnetic or thermodynamic, but the human factors of greed, fraud, and corruption that are or are at least threatening to, in my opinion, make a mockery of the very notion of the science that we both hold so dear.

Some shysters & the media are saying: Scientists say the sky is falling.

The sky is not falling, and eventually the fraud will be exposed by nature herself.

Will science survive, or will only politics remain?

Posted by: Vitruvius at May 23, 2008 11:57 PM

Larry: I can agree that scientific decisions should not be made on consensus, but a consensus position can and does arise from the fundamental work done by scientists. For example there is a consensus position on gravity, quantum mechanics, etc.

But let me ask you, what do you think of the petition described here?

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 24, 2008 12:03 AM

These snakes know no bounds, they will just change the rules and the moronic msm and we hate Harper all the time National Newswatch will print what they think you should know and then go away smug that you will not seek out the truth. thank god for these blogs, and by the way the scientific term for a fubar like this is Reptile Dysfunction.

Posted by: bartinsky at May 24, 2008 12:17 AM

Actually, "consensus" is the primary method by which the scientific community legitimizes scientific breakthroughs. See "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science" by Alan Cromer.

Consensus in this context refers to something other than a mere vote, zeitgeist, or fad. Its the specific way that error checking manifests itself through a collection of authorities in a scientific field.

If you want to argue that truth is not a matter of consensus, you would be right if what you were referring to is a simple Gallup poll, or the blind appeals from politicians to "consensus". But in this context it means that a majority of scientists devoted to the scientific method agree to a set of conclusions. This is much different.

Posted by: Bill at May 24, 2008 12:42 AM

John Cross: You are helping the fascists, history may not be kind to you.

Posted by: bob at May 24, 2008 12:51 AM

It is indeed much different, Bill, yet the question remains: just what is the breadth and scope of this methodological consensus to which the scientists have putatively agreed, taking all petitions into account, to what degree does that measure correlate to the claims that are being made in the name of science by political marketing operatives, and in particular, what are the risks involved if that correlation is weak.

Posted by: Vitruvius at May 24, 2008 12:53 AM

Hi Vitruvius: As always, good to hear from you. A couple of minor points to start with. First, I hope that you are correct that our technology will cause the whole issue to be moot, but as people are fond of pointing out there are energy hungry countries in the world.

The issue of the effects of increased CO2 is an interesting topic. There will be good effects as well as bad. In my opinion the main benefit will be the reduced water stress (mainly in C3 plants) due to more efficient CO2 use. However there are also bad and one of the worst will be the disruption of ocean ecosystems due to changes in pH.

However I believe the main thrust of your point is that there is the possibility for corruption and an associated distortion of the science. If so, I am afraid I am not well equipped to address it. There is no question that governments will use whatever they can to forward their goals (just look at the junta in Myanmar). Democracy is better than other systems but still prone to corruption. The only thing we can do though is to combat the poor science on all sides. For example, the idea that global warming could shut down the gulf stream is an old and discredited idea and I have not heard much of it recently. I have never ascribed to the idea that climate change is going to end civilization.

Regards and good night.

John

Posted by: John Cross at May 24, 2008 1:11 AM

"I have never ascribed to the idea that climate change is going to end civilization." JC

AAaaamen ! Another onside - possible Gore fraud suit.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at May 24, 2008 1:19 AM

John you state:
The issue of the effects of increased CO2 is an interesting topic. There will be good effects as well as bad. In my opinion the main benefit will be the reduced water stress (mainly in C3 plants) due to more efficient CO2 use. However there are also bad and one of the worst will be the disruption of ocean ecosystems due to changes in pH.

I don't think the oceanic pH changes will be of the degree you assume as a drop in ocean pH will occur only if the oceans contained nothing but water and a bit of salt. In this case CO2 would simply dissolve to form H2CO3. As it stands there is quite a bit of plankton in the oceans and CO2 works as a fertilizer for plankton just as it does for plants. My preliminary internet searches have just made things more confusing as, while there are C3 photosynthetic plankton, they also happen to use other photosynthetic pathways and plankton and algae also utilize HCO3 as a source of carbon.

The other factor involved in removal of CO2 from oceans is diatoms as they have CaCO3 skeletons and would have their growth rate increased if either CO2 or HCO3 concentrations increased.

My gut feeling is that ocean pH is not going to change substantially with increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. As we're dealing with biologic systems, however, the situation is likely much more complicated as one has to consider whether there are other rate limiting nutrients and whether CO2 fertilization can set off growth which will outstip nutrient supply and give a large amount of dead, decaying plankton which will be releasing more CO2 than it absorbed.

I'm curious if you've given this subject any thought or know of any references that deal with effects of CO2 on plankton. I have to admit that I hadn't really thought much about the role of plankton and diatoms as CO2 sinks until I started working out what kind of ocean pH changes could be expected after reading your post.

Posted by: loki at May 24, 2008 4:22 AM

Poor, poor Ted.

Struggling to see where the bust is...

Tried a strip club?

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at May 24, 2008 7:06 AM

"To be "busted", don't you actually have to be, um, "busted"? As in "caught"? As in, when your whole post is about telling the world what you are planning to do and then later that you did it, I'm kinda struggling to see where the "bust" is."

No kidding. Kate, you and your fans are morons. And when it comes to lying, I thin gold standard on this is libel, is not?

What do you think, Ms. Shaidle?

Posted by: Jethro from Lloydminster at May 24, 2008 9:26 AM

When playing on a blog Jethro, if within the first couple of postings you don't know who the moron is,, well, your the moron, same as the patsie in poker.

Posted by: bartinsky at May 24, 2008 10:00 AM

Jethro?

Jethro Clampett?

Posted by: irwin daisy at May 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Loki: If you are interested in the topic, here is a report from the Royal Society. However it is a little out of date (2005).

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 24, 2008 11:45 AM

'However it is a little out of date (2005).'~ jc

Just like Mezmerism.

Posted by: otter at May 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Since the whole AGW thing is a fraud why not a fraudulent BCL.

Is this news,

Could he not go through the list and prove some of the 30,000 are not scientists? Like Richard Warman could have at VNN?

Posted by: Dinosaur at May 24, 2008 12:08 PM

Since the whole AGW thing is a fraud why not a fraudulent BCL. Fraudulent weather stations, Fraudulent models.

Is this news,

Could he not go through the list and prove some of the 30,000 are not scientists? Like axetogrind could have at VNN?

Posted by: Dinosaur at May 24, 2008 12:10 PM

Quote: No kidding. Kate, you and your fans are morons. And when it comes to lying, I thin gold standard on this is libel, is not?

What do you think, Ms. Shaidle?

Posted by: Jethro from Lloydminster at

Can someone translate the above post for me, who libeled whom? What's he trying to say? Another leftard who can't spell, sigh why do they quit school before grade ten?

Posted by: Rose at May 24, 2008 3:37 PM

John Cross: "I took a quick look and many of the signatories are not climatologists but medical doctors."

Please go here and take a little closer look:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=31000+scientists+breakdown

(sorry I don't know how to put in an html link)

The 31,000 includes 3,697 with degrees in Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment sciences (looks pretty relevant to me), 903 in Computers & Math sciences (computer models and math are what most of the GW predictions are based on), just to name the most relevant areas. There are an additional 5,691 in Physics and Aerospace and a further 4,796 in Chemistry, both with heavy applicability to the warming debate.

There are only 3,069 with Medical degrees, but I'll bet the talking point that "some are MD's so the whole petition it bogus" has already morphed into solid concrete on the leftwing blogosphere and will be repeated endlessly despite the obvious and readily available reality.

George Kopecky

Posted by: Geokstr at May 24, 2008 4:17 PM

George: I could only find the page that gives the total numbers. Can you post the link that has the names associated with the degrees in Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment sciences?

Thanks,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 24, 2008 4:26 PM

Well said George, He just dont know how to address the fact that most people scientists and laymen alike think its all hogwash.

Posted by: bob at May 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Hi John:

I have no idea how they got to those numbers, and if that breakdown is not available, they should put it up. Who cares about a total list or a list by state anyway? I'll contact them and see if they have the data broken down that way.

Posted by: Geokstr at May 24, 2008 4:56 PM

Hi John:

I have no idea how they got to those numbers, and if that breakdown is not available, they should put it up. Who cares about a total list or a list by state anyway? I'll contact them and see if they have the data broken down that way.

Posted by: Geokstr at May 24, 2008 4:56 PM

Hi John:

I have no idea how they got to those numbers, and if that breakdown is not available, they should put it up. Who cares about a total list or a list by state anyway? I'll contact them and see if they have the data broken down that way.

Posted by: Geokstr at May 24, 2008 5:24 PM

John, thanks for the link to the Royal Society report. Interesting reading, but have just skimmed it so far (too much to do today).

The impression I get is that the authors of the report are doing worst case scenarios of a drop in oceanic pH of 0.5 units by 2100. My guess is that the pH drop will be significantly less. Oceanic pH might be the best marker looking at effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 as modelling the ocean circulation appears to be a more tractable problem than modelling the atmosphere. Also, plankton populations can be estimated from stregnth of chlorophyll signals in satellite images. More research for me to do when I have the time, but my gut feeling is that there are biologic feedback loops which will greatly diminish the drop in oceanic pH that is expected.

Posted by: loki at May 24, 2008 9:56 PM

Loki: No problem - always interested in seeing what others make of various documents. It is very possible that there will be mitigating biological processes. However one of my concerns is that ocean life is generally not tolerant of changes in the chemistry of sea water.

I believe there was also an article in either Nature or Science in the last year or two.

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 24, 2008 11:33 PM

John C., CO2 levels were higher in the past and we had oceans at that time and they presumably contained life. Is there evidence that oceans were absent of life when the CO2 levels were 1000ppm?

If not, then I'm sure that ocean life can adapt through a process called "evolution".

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Posted by: Eeyore at May 25, 2008 9:05 AM

Interesting side issue to the AGW "debate", it has been discovered the last couple years that there are more "spots" showing up in Jupiter's atmosphere. Those are storms. On Jupiter, storms are heat engines, caused by solar and tidal energy. Since Jupiter didn't pick up an extra moon lately, increased solar input would seem to be indicated. So much for the "A" in AGW.

AGW continues to exist as a political football entirely due to the efforts of people like BigCityFib. No lie is too crass, no deception too heinous if it advances The Cause.

Posted by: The Phantom at May 25, 2008 11:14 AM

Phantom: On the other thread I argued that increased solar output couldn't be the cause and was told several times that this was a "meme" or it was showing that we didn't know everything about everything.

Regards,
John

Posted by: John Cross at May 26, 2008 8:25 AM
Site
Meter