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.
The link seems to be broken.
It should be —
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/the-32000-who-say-no-convincing-evidence/
Shocking! So completely out of character. And he was just turning his life around …
I’m sure there’s an HRC somewhere that could make use of his talents…
Wow! BigCityLib caught [gasp!] LYIN’! Say it ain’t so, Big! Say it ain’t so!
You think you know somebody… oh, wait.
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.
You think you know somebody… oh, wait.
thanks LM.
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.
Is Murphy related to Lying Dion? The carbon tax neutral man.
You know what they say, scratch a liberal and you’ll find a moral degenerate underneath the scabies.
Someone should alert National Newswatch!
Definitely CBC hack/spinner Boag must be sent this information. Imagine his lips would develop quite a pucker.
Put this one on the Endangering Species list: Spotted Brown Enveloped Fiberal.
I love it! After all the personal insults he’s blithely tossed my way, my day is officially made.
Bigcitylib is actually proud he’s a liar. He encourages others to lie as well. A true librano.
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.
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.
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.
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
I always thought of Big City Lib as the Liberal “Fredo Corleone”.
Hardly surprising………..
“I always thought of Big City Lib as the Liberal “Fredo Corleone”.”
Poor Fredo “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour…..”
Next week maybe we’ll hear that he’d refused to join any club that would have him as a member.
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).
What do you expect from people who idolize Michael Moore and any number of propagandists who lie for a “good” cause?
John Cross: Whats your take on the 31,000 scientists that think AGW is horseshit?’~ Bob
If you had the resources and put in the leg work and time, I think 100,000 signatures would be possible.
BCL is a pain in the neck on many serious climate fora. He’ll never show his arse again.
BCL has just boosted the credibility of the Oregon petition!@!
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.
“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.
Big City Lib can kiss my conservative ass
“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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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”.
So Liberal, so big city.
A liar and very proud of it.
Hope he left the window cracked in the hummer…ti-guy’s gotta be hyperventilating something fierce …….
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.
Did I hear someone say that BCL was moving out of his mother’s basement soon?
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
—> 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
John Cross: You are helping the fascists, history may not be kind to you.