The ethanol scam

Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

--
altheim

altheim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some one
who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is that
CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and temperature
numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they say,
the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they expect ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote:

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
one
who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
that
CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no
?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature
numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
you had the time.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at temperature,
when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant growth. Hey, they
say,
the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2. Err.... right. What did they
expect ?

That CO2 levels and temperature are inextricably linked. What did you expect?

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please some
one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC case is
that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their case, no ?


Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is fundamentally
flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed, if only
you had the time.

I would indeed.

Graham

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to
please some one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
case, no ?


Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
fundamentally
flawed.

No doubt you could point out those details and why they are flawed,
if only you had the time.

I would indeed.




Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah¬


Bertie






Graham

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Bwahwahawhawhawhawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahhwhah ¬

Bertie

Hey....

call mom

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Eeyore wrote in
:



altheim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see
in the flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.

It would be more helpful to us if you just mentioned one
or two here. By the time you have gotten around to doing
something on your site the moment will have passed and
we shall all have forgotton about it. You wouldn't want that,
would you?

I spend enough time on Usenet without typing reams of stuff to please
some one who also might forget about it in a trice.

However, here's suimple one. Let's start at the beginning. The IPCC
case is that CO2 and temperature data show anthropogenic global
warming.

So, their CO2 and temperature figures are rather important to their
case, no ?

Now, look in some details and you'll find that both their CO2 and
temperature numbers are based on data manipulation that is
fundamentally flawed.

I also particularly love the way they use tree rings to look at
temperature, when it's well known that atmospheric CO2 affects plant
growth. Hey, they say, the temperature (tree rings) follows CO2.
Err.... right. What did they expect ?



Oh brother, netkkkop finds yet another way to embarrass hisself.


Bertie















Graham

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

Post some.

I'll probably put something about it on a site eventually.


Don't put too much work into it, netkkkop. You'll prolly get booted anyway.



Bertie

Graham