![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past peer review, only to be caught later: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/ Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past peer review, only to be caught later: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/ Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm Michael Mann continues to be a respected scientist. On the other hand, John Daly, the school teacher funded by big oil to provide pseudoscience, is dead, though his industry sponsored propaganda site lives on. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dan Luke wrote: Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: **** the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in epistomology or critical thinking. You persist in this patronizing tone. Why? You must have realized by now that the What-AGW folks do not really believe what they are saying, but just can't help being niggling hectoring contrarian puffed-up supercilious twits whose pretense of being obviously smarter, more knowledgable, more honest, more moral, and more ethical than anyone who disagrees with them masks a deep-seated despair that this "superiority" is the only source of their worth, and if they were to fail to "win" these kind of arguments for any reason, even by discovering that objective reality did not match their predetermined position, they would have to face the horror of existence as just another piece of meat in a world where the leaders they slavishly support treat them as shabbily as they do the rest of us. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Barrow" wrote: The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW. Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus". Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for murky reasons nobody can fathom? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ah, Z, you overreached yourself, as usual.
You should not make fun of the creationists since they are your AGW allies. They think, like Dodger Crappock, that evil Industrialists are not keeping good stewardship of the earth, and want to scale back progress. The AGW controversy gives them the perfect opportunity to do so, under the guise of science. As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW paper--that's well known. RL z wrote: "Matt Barrow" wrote: The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW. Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus". Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for murky reasons nobody can fathom? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() raylopez99 wrote: As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW paper--that's well known. Did you know the Bushies run the government now? Oh, and by the way, for those forced to pervert their views by publishing AGW in order to maintain their wealth and power as climatologists, here is a list of 40-odd think tanks, media outlets, and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups which have received more than $8 million from ExxonMobil to free them to publish the truth about the AGW lie. Since none of them have taken anything other than the what-AGW? position since receiving this money, that must mean that that is the truth! No doubt ExxonMobil would be glad to free more scientists from bondage if you asked! In fact, looking at the table, you don't even have to do anything climatology related! http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | January 26th 05 07:08 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |