Nothing good about Ethanol

"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

"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.

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.

"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?

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?

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