On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:
Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ut_the_ti.html


http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

http://www.icecap.us/


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jan 23, 8:30*am, Swingman wrote:
On 1/23/2010 10:14 AM, Swingman wrote:

Let's see some "scientific" refutation, please:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...was_but_the_ti...

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81559212.html

http://www.icecap.us/

Let's see, the first article is by John P. Costella of the "SPPI".
Looking up the organization and who they a

President: Robert Ferguson has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience,
having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House
Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as
Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief
of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and
Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.

Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret
Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986,

Chief Science Adviser: Willie Soon PhD. Look him up at Source Watch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon

No articles from anyone from mainstream science, except for Pielke,
who seems to be a maverick but nevertheless accepts the idea of
anthropogenic climate change.

Sorry, Swing, that site lost all credibility. The whole bit about
climate change "denial" or "skepticism" reeks too much of the same BS
as the anti-evolution or flat earth crowd. I'll stick to buying what
is clearly the scientific consensus, at least for now, including
every single advanced country's academy of science.

Take a look at the Climate progress for the other side:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/0...ce-scientists/
incidentally, 2009 was the second warmest year on record.

And if you want to read what the scientists involved are saying, got
to: http://www.realclimate.org.



Luigi

On 1/23/2010 11:30 PM, Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Sorry, Swing, that site lost all credibility.

Go ahead, shoot the messenger ...

And if you want to read what the scientists involved are saying, got
to: http://www.realclimate.org.

You are kidding, right?

"realclimate.org" is owned by: Environmental Media Services (EMS)

" EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the
National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and
as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House."

The objective fox in the hen house? eh?

C'mon Luigi, you're smarter than to fall for that!

.... still looking for "scientific" refutation.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:

Go ahead, shoot the messenger ...

You want to deliver IBS, expect some lumps.

Lew

On 1/24/2010 12:54 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Go ahead, shoot the messenger ...

You want to deliver IBS, expect some lumps.

?? The messenger in this case being the three organizations who reported
the findings?

... pay attention.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Sorry, Swing, that site lost all credibility. The whole bit about
climate change "denial" or "skepticism" reeks too much of the same BS
as the anti-evolution or flat earth crowd. I'll stick to buying what
is clearly the scientific consensus, at least for now, including
every single advanced country's academy of science.

Sorry, "consensus" does not generate "truth" (except in the liberal arts
such as English Literature, art, history, etc.). It is truth that generates
consensus. Regrettably, "truth" is often assumed to be what the experts say
it is - and they sometimes lie. Especially when the raw data are
unavailable, the results are not reproducible, and the experts have a
financial interest in the outcome.

Here's a report from just today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-verified.html

Part of the IPCC's report said the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by
2035. It is simply physically impossible to melt 400' thick ice covering
thousands of square miles in thirty-five years. Further, the "2035" number
was plucked from a magazine article written by a twit and included solely to
put pressure on political leaders. Over 500 people "peer reviewed" this IPCC
report and no one raised an objection.

When the Indian government reported no abnormal reduction in Himalayan
glaciers, the same person who now admits the fraud/mistake called the
governmental report "voodoo science."

You've been duped by the hippies and Luddites who think we can run the world
off of sunbeams.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Sorry, Swing, that site lost all credibility. The whole bit about
climate change "denial" or "skepticism" reeks too much of the same BS
as the anti-evolution or flat earth crowd. I'll stick to buying what
is clearly the scientific consensus, at least for now, including
every single advanced country's academy of science.

Sorry, "consensus" does not generate "truth" (except in the liberal arts
such as English Literature, art, history, etc.). It is truth that generates
consensus. Regrettably, "truth" is often assumed to be what the experts say
it is - and they sometimes lie. Especially when the raw data are
unavailable, the results are not reproducible, and the experts have a
financial interest in the outcome.

Here's a report from just today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-says-knew-da
ta-verified.html

Part of the IPCC's report said the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by
2035. It is simply physically impossible to melt 400' thick ice covering
thousands of square miles in thirty-five years. Further, the "2035" number
was plucked from a magazine article written by a twit and included solely to
put pressure on political leaders. Over 500 people "peer reviewed" this IPCC
report and no one raised an objection.

One report said that "2035" was supposed to read "2350" but the digits were
transposed and no one noticed.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
Luigi Zanasi wrote:

Sorry, Swing, that site lost all credibility. The whole bit about
climate change "denial" or "skepticism" reeks too much of the same
BS as the anti-evolution or flat earth crowd. I'll stick to buying
what is clearly the scientific consensus, at least for now,
including every single advanced country's academy of science.

Sorry, "consensus" does not generate "truth" (except in the liberal
arts such as English Literature, art, history, etc.). It is truth
that generates consensus. Regrettably, "truth" is often assumed to
be what the experts say it is - and they sometimes lie. Especially
when the raw data are unavailable, the results are not reproducible,
and the experts have a financial interest in the outcome.

Here's a report from just today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-says-knew-da
ta-verified.html

Part of the IPCC's report said the glaciers in the Himalayas would
melt by 2035. It is simply physically impossible to melt 400' thick
ice covering thousands of square miles in thirty-five years.
Further, the "2035" number was plucked from a magazine article
written by a twit and included solely to put pressure on political
leaders. Over 500 people "peer reviewed" this IPCC report and no one
raised an objection.

One report said that "2035" was supposed to read "2350" but the
digits were
transposed and no one noticed.

Yeah, I saw that too. Maybe it was supposed to be 5320? or 3250? But it
doesn't matter what the number is as long as there is a "consensus" that the
proffered number is correct. Even if the number defies the laws of God, man,
or physics.