A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by
2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the
United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus
over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where
British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from
accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office
criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100,
suggesting much lower increases were likely.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece

Best Regards
Tom.

"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the outside, Red on the
inside.

I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

Wes

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe
the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil
fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that
we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm,
and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about
whether humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by
burning fossil fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of
the pollution are on one and scientists are on the other. You believe
the polluters. I'd say you have a personal bias and that is why you
believe the producers of pollution. You just want to believe them like a
Christian wants to believe the Bible. If you look at just the facts you
would see the logic in believing we can cause negative effects on the
planet. All you have to do is see the air pollution in China to know
what we can do. To think we can do the same thing on a global level is
pretty easy to believe. Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued
a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was
the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if
the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that
it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every
environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

Wes

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process, and
I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and
most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central
claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the
Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in
any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the
likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is
very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every
environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe the
word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil fuels has
any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that we can burn
all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm, and that if
you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe them then you
are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco company executives
who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you can't see the
producers of pollution have financial interests in lying to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about whether
humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by burning fossil
fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of the pollution are
on one and scientists are on the other. You believe the polluters. I'd say
you have a personal bias and that is why you believe the producers of
pollution. You just want to believe them like a Christian wants to believe
the Bible. If you look at just the facts you would see the logic in
believing we can cause negative effects on the planet. All you have to do
is see the air pollution in China to know what we can do. To think we can
do the same thing on a global level is pretty easy to believe. Unless you
start up with your mind made up. You've been snookered by the polluters
lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

The AGW movement will never regain credibility. You guys had a shot but
threw it away.

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process,
and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give you
credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid, but a
lot of guts!

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it
can. When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called
on it. Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review
process, and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give
you credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid,
but a lot of guts!

No, read the full cited link. It was other scientists in the field who blew
the whistle, and now the IPCC is owning up to the error and correcting the
report. No AGW denier ever corrects anything.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:21:57 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued
a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was
the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if
the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that
it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every
environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

Wes

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process, and
I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.

On the other hand..the vast scrambling and tisking and the enormous
silence from the Gorbal warming crowd in regards to the various bits of
data that have shown Gorbal warming to be a strong fraud is proof that
they really dont like having their scam uncovered

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Jan 19, 5:05*pm, Hawke wrote:
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a
benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most
detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the
world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could
vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any
other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood
of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it
was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal,
published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a
short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist
then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. *AGW is every environazi's
dream. *Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe
the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil
fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that
we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm,
and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.



I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in. *

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about
whether humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by
burning fossil fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of
the pollution are on one and scientists are on the other. You believe
the polluters. I'd say you have a personal bias and that is why you
believe the producers of pollution. You just want to believe them like a
Christian wants to believe the Bible. If you look at just the facts you
would see the logic in believing we can cause negative effects on the
planet. All you have to do is see the air pollution in China to know
what we can do. To think we can do the same thing on a global level is
pretty easy to believe. Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...mment.news.123

anorton wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
...
"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it
can. When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called
on it. Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review
process, and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.

Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give
you credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid,
but a lot of guts!

No, read the full cited link. It was other scientists in the field who blew
the whistle, and now the IPCC is owning up to the error and correcting the
report. No AGW denier ever corrects anything.

Another article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm
has the following from one of the whistle blowers. Note his final words.
-----------
Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from
the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of
the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in
2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an
interview.

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised
by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013.

But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains
beyond reproach, he said.

Buerste wrote:

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process,
and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give you
credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid, but a
lot of guts!


It takes a really stupid rat, not to jump ship before the deck goes
under the waterline.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Buerste wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest
and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A
central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that
those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than
in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues,
the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps
sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based
on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known
Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is
every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence
to prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to
believe the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of
fossil fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling
you that we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause
any harm, and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if
you believe them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed
the tobacco company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's
amazing that you can't see the producers of pollution have financial
interests in lying to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want
to enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about
whether humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by
burning fossil fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of
the pollution are on one and scientists are on the other. You believe
the polluters. I'd say you have a personal bias and that is why you
believe the producers of pollution. You just want to believe them like
a Christian wants to believe the Bible. If you look at just the facts
you would see the logic in believing we can cause negative effects on
the planet. All you have to do is see the air pollution in China to
know what we can do. To think we can do the same thing on a global
level is pretty easy to believe. Unless you start up with your mind
made up. You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are
good at it.

Hawke

The AGW movement will never regain credibility. You guys had a shot but
threw it away.


Well, I just heard an advertisement from BP (British Petroleum) and in
the ad they were talking about global warming and what they are doing to
prevent it and how they were at the forefront of changing to new forms
of clean energy. I just wonder why they would be doing that if they
didn't know that the burning of fossil fuels was causing problems.
Apparently, the oil companies do know what their products are doing and
some are adapting to a situation where they are going to eventually
change to alternative energy sources. That alone ought to tell you they
think global warming is real and they have plenty of experts telling
them it is too. But you prefer to listen to the minority of non
mainstream science that denies what the majority believes. Did you
believe the tobacco executives too when they said they didn't think
tobacco was addictive?

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe
the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil
fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that
we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm,
and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.


Why do you assume I'm in the control of the energy industry? I'm just an observer of the
left and spotter of bull**** in general. The AGW agenda smelled wrong, the emails proved
it, this last bit of news is icing on the cake.

Btw, I quit smoking for health reasons before the tobacco companies got busted. I noticed
a correlation between people I know and early deaths that smoked. Heck, every smoker knew
it, why do you think ciggarettes were refered to as coffin nails? We all knew the truth,
even when big tobacco lied.

I quit May 6, 1986, 7:25PM.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"azotic" wrote:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest
and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A
central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those
in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in
any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the
likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is
very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on
a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian
scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Science has long been abandoned in support of the 'cause'. AGW is
every environazi's
dream. Total control of everything they do not like. Green on the
outside, Red on the
inside.

Where do you get ideas like that? You don't have a shred of evidence to
prove that statement. The question is why are you so quick to believe
the word of the energy industry that no amount of burning of fossil
fuels has any negative effect on the planet? They are telling you that
we can burn all the fossil fuels we want and it doesn't cause any harm,
and that if you say it does you're crazy. The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.


I'd rather see us spend a fraction of the costs the environazis want to
enact on us to
raise people in Haiti and Africa out of the gutter they live in.

No argument there, but that's another issue. The question is about
whether humans can negatively affect the ecology of the planet by
burning fossil fuels. The two sides on this issue are the producers of
the pollution are on one and scientists are on the other. You believe
the polluters. I'd say you have a personal bias and that is why you
believe the producers of pollution. You just want to believe them like a
Christian wants to believe the Bible. If you look at just the facts you
would see the logic in believing we can cause negative effects on the
planet. All you have to do is see the air pollution in China to know
what we can do. To think we can do the same thing on a global level is
pretty easy to believe. Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

The AGW movement will never regain credibility. You guys had a shot but
threw it away.


Well, I just heard an advertisement from BP (British Petroleum) and in the
ad they were talking about global warming and what they are doing to
prevent it and how they were at the forefront of changing to new forms of
clean energy. I just wonder why they would be doing that if they didn't
know that the burning of fossil fuels was causing problems. Apparently,
the oil companies do know what their products are doing and some are
adapting to a situation where they are going to eventually change to
alternative energy sources. That alone ought to tell you they think global
warming is real and they have plenty of experts telling them it is too.
But you prefer to listen to the minority of non mainstream science that
denies what the majority believes. Did you believe the tobacco executives
too when they said they didn't think tobacco was addictive?

Hawke

OK, keyword here is "Advertisement"! The reason a company advertises is to
sell goods or services. A good advertisement invokes a positive emotional
response in the target audience and ties it to the product and the company
to boost sales. The advertisement targets people that are "concerned" about
the environment and sells stuff to them or enhances the companies image to
those people for future sales. Drawing conclusions from advertisements is
as foolish as claiming "It MUST be true, I read it in a novel!"

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Buerste wrote:

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it
can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on
it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review
process,
and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give
you
credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid, but
a
lot of guts!


It takes a really stupid rat, not to jump ship before the deck goes
under the waterline.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

And the crabs got off the ship on the Captain's dingy.

Well, I just heard an advertisement from BP (British Petroleum) and in
the ad they were talking about global warming and what they are doing
to prevent it and how they were at the forefront of changing to new
forms of clean energy. I just wonder why they would be doing that if
they didn't know that the burning of fossil fuels was causing
problems. Apparently, the oil companies do know what their products
are doing and some are adapting to a situation where they are going to
eventually change to alternative energy sources. That alone ought to
tell you they think global warming is real and they have plenty of
experts telling them it is too. But you prefer to listen to the
minority of non mainstream science that denies what the majority
believes. Did you believe the tobacco executives too when they said
they didn't think tobacco was addictive?

Hawke

OK, keyword here is "Advertisement"! The reason a company advertises is
to sell goods or services. A good advertisement invokes a positive
emotional response in the target audience and ties it to the product and
the company to boost sales. The advertisement targets people that are
"concerned" about the environment and sells stuff to them or enhances
the companies image to those people for future sales. Drawing
conclusions from advertisements is as foolish as claiming "It MUST be
true, I read it in a novel!"


False advertising is fraud. So a company cannot make claims it can't
back up, especially not big ones like BP. If they say they are doing
this and that about global warming I think you can trust that they are.
They are trying to get business through advertising, that's true. But
they also have a lot of scientists working for them. They have been
accused of being gross polluters. Instead of denying it, which would be
a lie, they say they are taking steps to lessen it. That's just what
tobacco did. They didn't say tobacco was harmless after the facts proved
otherwise. They came out with anti smoking programs. I am saying BP is
doing the same thing and for the same reason. Their scientists have
confirmed for the company what the climate experts have found. They put
that stuff in their ads. If they thought like you they would be denying
they were responsible for any global warming. Why accept blame when you
did nothing wrong? So they know the facts. You have been shown them but
have decided not to believe them. Why, I don't know. If you actually did
some research into the subject you would find what everyone does, that
the vast majority of experts, and that means real climate scientists,
say that man is heating the planet up by burning fossil fuels. The
people who deny that are a small minority. That's just the facts, which
you could confirm if you really wanted to.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The fact that some people were acting dishonestly doesn't discredit the
work of literally thousands of honest scientists who all have come to
similar conclusions.
Hawke

Scientists also gave us the eugenics programs last century and
look how well that worked out. As a matter of fact it was a britt
that came up with it, just like now they had lots of data to support
thier ideas all based on scientific reasearch. Fortunatley the GW
advocates got caught this time arround before they could do any
real damage. There were thousands of honest scientists at that time who
believed in and supported eugenics. In fact they were so convincing
they duped politians into passing laws that harmed many people and
caused untold suffering, some folks even died at the hands of these
scientists.

Blind faith in what scientists tell you is dangerious...


Best Regards
Tom.

azotic wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The fact that some people were acting dishonestly doesn't discredit the
work of literally thousands of honest scientists who all have come to
similar conclusions.
Hawke

Scientists also gave us the eugenics programs last century and
look how well that worked out. As a matter of fact it was a britt
that came up with it, just like now they had lots of data to support
thier ideas all based on scientific reasearch. Fortunatley the GW
advocates got caught this time arround before they could do any
real damage. There were thousands of honest scientists at that time who
believed in and supported eugenics. In fact they were so convincing
they duped politians into passing laws that harmed many people and
caused untold suffering, some folks even died at the hands of these
scientists.

Blind faith in what scientists tell you is dangerious...


Blind faith in anything is dangerous. But who's advocating blind faith
in science? Even the scientists don't do that. Everything in science is
based on theory and is subject to change if there is new evidence. If
down the road all the evidence points to there being no global warming
that is what science will accept. But then, right now all the science
says it is happening. So that's what I'm going with. When the leading
global scientists say the threat of global warming is over and they
misinterpreted the data then I'll gladly accept that. Until then I'll go
with what they are saying the data shows as of now.


Hawke

Buerste wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Buerste wrote:

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it
can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on
it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review
process,
and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give
you
credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid, but
a
lot of guts!


It takes a really stupid rat, not to jump ship before the deck goes
under the waterline.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

And the crabs got off the ship on the Captain's dingy.


Not all. Ed's still here.




--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Buerste wrote:

"anorton" wrote in message
m...
snip

This is by no means an indication of science abandoning AGW. This is a
prime example of science policing itself to find the truth as best it can.
When a lazy, overzealous technocrat gets things wrong, he is called on it.
Of course this should have been caught earlier in a peer review process,
and I assume they will be improving that process.

On the other hand all the anti-AGW crap on the internet (such as the
Petition Project) that has been debunked many times as fraudulent still
stays on the web and commentators and bloggers still cite it.


Policing itself? I don't THINK so! THEY---GOT---CAUGHT!!! But, I give you
credit, It takes a lot of guts to stay on the sinking ship. Stupid, but a
lot of guts!


It takes a really stupid rat, not to jump ship before the deck goes
under the waterline.

During an abandon ship drill in WW2, my father related, the Marines were
being instructed how to jump from the deck and protect themselves from
debris in the water. One grizzled old Gunnery Sergeant seemed singularly
unimpressed and uninterested. The instructor berated him for his
inattention and asked him how he expected to survive having a ship shot
out from under him.

He replied: "I'll do just like I did twice last war. I'll wait 'til the
deck's awash and just step off."

On Jan 19, 3:05*pm, Hawke wrote:
The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.
...
Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

There is a perfect parallel between the tobacco industry cover up and
the global warming cover up.

When I was in college in 1971, we were taught that by 2000, 20% of the
world's population would be dead from pollution.
By 1982 I had built a super insulated solar home, worked like a slave
in my 10,000 sq ft organic garden, recycled everything before public
recycling was available, and built noisy wind mills.
I was snookered, alright, by subversive professors.
Now I am ashamed I fell for that crap.

John Husvar wrote:

During an abandon ship drill in WW2, my father related, the Marines were
being instructed how to jump from the deck and protect themselves from
debris in the water. One grizzled old Gunnery Sergeant seemed singularly
unimpressed and uninterested. The instructor berated him for his
inattention and asked him how he expected to survive having a ship shot
out from under him.

He replied: "I'll do just like I did twice last war. I'll wait 'til the
deck's awash and just step off."


That's ok if it sinks slow, and level. If it doesn't, you'll be
pulled under and you may drown. The bigger the hunk of steel, the better
the chance you won't make it.

My relatives who served in the Navy were mostly submariners, so their
chances were very poor if their sub got hit.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Let the Record show that "Buerste" on or about
Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:48:04 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

OK, keyword here is "Advertisement"! The reason a company advertises is to
sell goods or services. A good advertisement invokes a positive emotional
response in the target audience and ties it to the product and the company
to boost sales. The advertisement targets people that are "concerned" about
the environment and sells stuff to them or enhances the companies image to
those people for future sales. Drawing conclusions from advertisements is
as foolish as claiming "It MUST be true, I read it in a novel!"

And there are organizations which manufacture "guilt" and then
sell "guilt relief".
"The planet is dieing, and it is your fault. To be absolved of
your guilt, send 29.95 to Buy Our Carbon Credits. Do it now.!"


tschus
pyotr

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
Do it for enough days, and you can destroy any local fishing industry,
thus assuring that you'll be able to sell his picture to those who
feel guilty about 'world hunger(tm)".

But if you teach the man to fish, he not only can feed himself for the
rest of his life, he might actually become self sufficient. Then you
can sell him hooks, line, bait, motors, a bigger boat, a trailer, a
car, even a fishing license. Possibly even a retirement program so
that he can travel to far off parts of the world and go fishing.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

" wrote:

On Jan 19, 3:05*pm, Hawke wrote:
The truth is if you believe
them then you are just as dumb as the people who believed the tobacco
company executives who said tobacco was harmless. It's amazing that you
can't see the producers of pollution have financial interests in lying
to you.
..
Unless you start up with your mind made up.
You've been snookered by the polluters lies, and they are good at it.

Hawke

There is a perfect parallel between the tobacco industry cover up and
the global warming cover up.

When I was in college in 1971, we were taught that by 2000, 20% of the
world's population would be dead from pollution.
By 1982 I had built a super insulated solar home, worked like a slave
in my 10,000 sq ft organic garden, recycled everything before public
recycling was available, and built noisy wind mills.
I was snookered, alright, by subversive professors.
Now I am ashamed I fell for that crap.


Well, you have a start on being a Survivalist.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller