IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's

[Gil Dobie]

For those of you with about an hour...
here's a complete rebuttal of Christopher Monckton famous Global Warming denier
Please keep in mind Monckton has NEVER written a peer review paper or report (ever)



http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks Cleets. What a **** joke, Monckton, Tbag, Z, 89Hen.....

Where's the hour rebuttal to Jesse Ventura's conspiracy report.

[Chizzang]

Where's the hour rebuttal to Jesse Ventura's conspiracy report.

This post of yours made me think back...
It made me wonder if you've ever actually posted anything that was helpful or thought provoking

I think this last post of yours kind of "sums up" your posting history here...

[Gil Dobie]

Where's the hour rebuttal to Jesse Ventura's conspiracy report.

This post of yours made me think back...
It made me wonder if you've ever actually posted anything that was helpful or thought provoking

I think this last post of yours kind of "sums up" your posting history here...

Forgive me father for I have sinned in the presence of the faux intellectual elite dalai lama.

[clenz]

So long story short is?

The Earth's climate is always changing, and has been since the start of time, and will change again in the future?

Wow, who would have thought.

[travelinman67]

For those of you with about an hour...
here's a complete rebuttal of Christopher Monckton famous Global Warming denier
Please keep in mind Monckton has NEVER written a peer review paper or report (ever)



http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and what was discovered in the leaked Climategate emails....

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

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.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

[kalm]

Again, this thread was over just a few posts in:

Lack of climate policy is also redistributing the world's wealth...

[travelinman67]

Again, this thread was over just a few posts in:

Lack of climate policy is also redistributing the world's wealth...

If you feel keeping the wealth away from government control and in the private sector, then he's right.

[Chizzang]

This post of yours made me think back...
It made me wonder if you've ever actually posted anything that was helpful or thought provoking

I think this last post of yours kind of "sums up" your posting history here...

Forgive me father for I have sinned in the presence of the faux intellectual elite dalai lama.

I appreciate your sarcasm -but - seriously, what do you ever contribute to any conversation..?
can you think of anything

[Chizzang]

So long story short is?

The Earth's climate is always changing, and has been since the start of time, and will change again in the future?

Wow, who would have thought.

That's certainly one way to interpret the data...
none of what is happening now (Rapid CO2 infusion) will really effect the humans that walk the earth today - at least not dramatically enough to get anybody to willfully do anything about it

But when we have 12 billion humans and real CO2 issues in 100 years - things are going to kinda suck for everybody



But the earth will be fine... it's just like the KT boundary - there will be a period of "dieing" among ecosystems
and a whole bunch of people including me think thats actually okay...

so what if we keep doing what we're doing - it's what humans do...
things change / ecosystems change / life changes / stuff dies / people die = so what...

[kalm]

Again, this thread was over just a few posts in:

If you feel keeping the wealth away from government control and in the private sector, then he's right.

Big oil loves governements, especially ones like ours that allow them to externalize costs or ones like Sudan who will turn over the nation's natural resources while the people are starving in exchange for a pittance and remaining in power.

[D1B]

So long story short is?

The Earth's climate is always changing, and has been since the start of time, and will change again in the future?

Wow, who would have thought.

That's certainly one way to interpret the data...
none of what is happening now (Rapid CO2 infusion) will really effect the humans that walk the earth today - at least not dramatically enough to get anybody to willfully do anything about it

But when we have 12 billion humans and real CO2 issues in 100 years - things are going to kinda suck for everybody



But the earth will be fine... it's just like the KT boundary - there will be a period of "dieing" among ecosystems
and a whole bunch of people including me think thats actually okay...

so what if we keep doing what we're doing - it's what humans do...
things change / ecosystems change / life changes / stuff dies / people die = so what...

Well.....Cleets you gotta understand, alot of these motherfuckers have children. Some here have great grandchildren. Unless they're psycho, they sure as hell should care "what humans do"...but they don't ironically. It's heartwarming to occasionally hear their stories about visiting grandchildren or the comings and going of their kids and I sometimes wonder how in the next thread they can be such asshole deniers and hold so low a regard for the health of the planet and oblivious to the dire consequences it's going to have for their children and their children.

[travelinman67]

That's certainly one way to interpret the data...
none of what is happening now (Rapid CO2 infusion) will really effect the humans that walk the earth today - at least not dramatically enough to get anybody to willfully do anything about it

But when we have 12 billion humans and real CO2 issues in 100 years - things are going to kinda suck for everybody



But the earth will be fine... it's just like the KT boundary - there will be a period of "dieing" among ecosystems
and a whole bunch of people including me think thats actually okay...

so what if we keep doing what we're doing - it's what humans do...
things change / ecosystems change / life changes / stuff dies / people die = so what...

Well.....Cleets you gotta understand, alot of these motherfuckers have children. Some here have great grandchildren. Unless they're psycho, they sure as hell should care "what humans do"...but they don't ironically. It's heartwarming to occasionally hear their stories about visiting grandchildren or the comings and going of their kids and I sometimes wonder how in the next thread they can be such asshole deniers and hold so low a regard for the health of the planet and oblivious to the dire consequences it's going to have for their children and their children.

Drink the Green Kool Aid, kids!!!




Substitute "childhood obesity", "concentration of wealth", "sodium intake", "transfats", "lack of mass transit", "inefficiency of homes", "abuse of hate speech", "firearm proliferation", or any of the other socialism conditioning topics for "health of the planet", and you've got the picture.

[CID1990]

So long story short is?

The Earth's climate is always changing, and has been since the start of time, and will change again in the future?

Wow, who would have thought.

That's certainly one way to interpret the data...
none of what is happening now (Rapid CO2 infusion) will really effect the humans that walk the earth today - at least not dramatically enough to get anybody to willfully do anything about it

But when we have 12 billion humans and real CO2 issues in 100 years - things are going to kinda suck for everybody



But the earth will be fine... it's just like the KT boundary - there will be a period of "dieing" among ecosystems
and a whole bunch of people including me think thats actually okay...

so what if we keep doing what we're doing - it's what humans do...
things change / ecosystems change / life changes / stuff dies / people die = so what...

Gonna have to buy you a beer sometime CLeetus. I think maybe you were in my head for a minute there.