Anti-climategate

[bringyagrogalong]

http://tinyurl.com/7833zps

Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:

Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.

A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
was one.

It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
AGW organisation. LOL

All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
national or international standing *bar none* who believe 
that human
activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
laughing.

------------

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.

"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".

- Stephen Hawking

[Regnad Kcin]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message

All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
national or international standing *bar none* who believe that human
activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
laughing.

_____________________________________________________

Well that would be natural.
Incontinent in body,
incontinent of mind.
QED

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[DonH]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message

news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

http://tinyurl.com/7833zps

Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:

Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.

A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
was one.

It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
AGW organisation. LOL

All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

national or international standing *bar none* who believe ?that human

activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
laughing.

------------

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.

"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".

- Stephen Hawking

# Yes, we are entitled to be sceptical of the sceptics.
Seven billion humans, with massive technology, belching billions of
tonnes of chimney (and vehicle) smoke into the air annually - and it has NO
effect on anything?
Of course, prior to 1800 AD, when humans were few in number, and
science/technology was in its infancy - then our impact was negligible.
But today? We can't move without impacting adversely on non-human
Nature.
Our race to extinction needs the most drastic and strenuous
counter-measures.
Carbon Tax or Trade is a feeble first step.

[Regnad Kcin]

"DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6Rb%q.3102$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...

____________________________________________________________

Double Plus Good! Thanks for the 5 minute H8!
On Your Own Brutha?
Yeeah! Tax those Americans back to the Stone Age! They are too afraid to
nuke anyone!
We got em where we want em!
*****************

Bring on the extinction if it means living with Fascist pigs like you.

[dechucka]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

http://tinyurl.com/7833zps

Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:

Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.

A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
was one.

It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
AGW organisation. LOL

All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
national or international standing *bar none* who believe 
that human
activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
laughing.

======================================

You are cynical the Heartland Institute was giving Carter and Susan
Crockford from the Uni of Vic. money because they are nice guys and don't
want anything in return

[Seon]

On 17/02/2012 1:15 AM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>
> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>
> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>

So what if he is in some mining lobby group, how does the man made
global warming religion affect mining? How does it work, does he get
paid to say what he says by the mining lobby and if he steps out of line
they stop funding him? How does that make what he says wrong, have you
even read any of his books or do you just say what other alarmists say?
What about all the climate scientists on the government payroll? Why can
only people like Plimer be bribed but not the people you agree with?
What would happen if they admitted there was no problem, the government
would cut their funding.
And Monckton is a liar and not a scientist, let's see you religious
people criticise Lord Gore.

> A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
> was one.
>

No it is the members of the man made globalw arming religion who have
been discredited.

> It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
> lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
> AGW organisation. LOL
>
> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

> national or international standing*bar none* who believe 
that human

> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
> laughing.
>

Learn what science is first. Scientists do not "Believe"

> ------------
>
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> global warming further.
>
> "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> - Stephen Hawking

Yet still no evidence humans are behind climate change, which is happening.

[Seon]

On 17/02/2012 5:24 AM, DonH wrote:
> "bringyagrogalong"<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>

> # Yes, we are entitled to be sceptical of the sceptics.
> Seven billion humans, with massive technology, belching billions of
> tonnes of chimney (and vehicle) smoke into the air annually - and it has NO
> effect on anything?
> Of course, prior to 1800 AD, when humans were few in number, and
> science/technology was in its infancy - then our impact was negligible.
> But today? We can't move without impacting adversely on non-human
> Nature.
> Our race to extinction needs the most drastic and strenuous
> counter-measures.
> Carbon Tax or Trade is a feeble first step.

A carbon tax that will be paid to an unelected UN body when we could be
using it to help the poor or give aid to other countries or use it for
something real like world hunger.

[dechucka]

"Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MeednS5NE8J16KDS...@westnet.com.au...

> On 17/02/2012 1:15 AM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>>
>> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>>
>> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
>> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
>> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
>> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>>
> So what if he is in some mining lobby group, how does the man made global
> warming religion affect mining? How does it work, does he get paid to say
> what he says by the mining lobby and if he steps out of line they stop
> funding him? How does that make what he says wrong, have you even read any
> of his books or do you just say what other alarmists say?
> What about all the climate scientists on the government payroll?

We know who are paying these scientists and can make up our minds, it is the
secret payments that are a worry. Now they are out in the open we can make
up our mind why the likes of Carter and his ilk are being paid by an
Institute running a climate skepticism campaign backed by large GHG
producers

>Why can only people like Plimer be bribed but not the people you agree
>with? What would happen if they admitted there was no problem, the
>government would cut their funding.
> And Monckton is a liar and not a scientist, let's see you religious people
> criticise Lord Gore.

Gore is up there with Monckton, loud mouth doesn't understand what he is
spouting

snip

[Seon]

On 17/02/2012 8:50 AM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MeednS5NE8J16KDS...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 17/02/2012 1:15 AM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>>>
>>> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>>>
>>> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
>>> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
>>> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
>>> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>>>
>> So what if he is in some mining lobby group, how does the man made
>> global warming religion affect mining? How does it work, does he get
>> paid to say what he says by the mining lobby and if he steps out of
>> line they stop funding him? How does that make what he says wrong,
>> have you even read any of his books or do you just say what other
>> alarmists say?
>> What about all the climate scientists on the government payroll?
>
> We know who are paying these scientists and can make up our minds, it is
> the secret payments that are a worry. Now they are out in the open we
> can make up our mind why the likes of Carter and his ilk are being paid
> by an Institute running a climate skepticism campaign backed by large
> GHG producers
>
>

It's the AGW alarmists who are being bribed by the government. If they
admit there is no problem the government cuts their funding.

>> Why can only people like Plimer be bribed but not the people you agree
>> with? What would happen if they admitted there was no problem, the
>> government would cut their funding.
>> And Monckton is a liar and not a scientist, let's see you religious
>> people criticise Lord Gore.
>
> Gore is up there with Monckton, loud mouth doesn't understand what he is
> spouting

At least you are honest enough to admit both don't know what they are
talking about, but at least Gore doesn't deliberately lie like Lord "I
can cure aids" Monckton.

[Ördög]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:22:55 +1100, Seon wrote:

> It's the AGW alarmists who are being bribed by the government

Really?
References please! Opposition and lobby groups propaganda publications
aren't references.

> ...the government cuts funding.

I suppose we could cut all science funding and go back into our tree and
cave dwellings. Science? Yuck! Who needs it!


--
Ördög
(A Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

[dechucka]

"Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:rs6dnc8rhbucH6DS...@westnet.com.au...

> On 17/02/2012 8:50 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MeednS5NE8J16KDS...@westnet.com.au...
>>> On 17/02/2012 1:15 AM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>>>>
>>>> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>>>>
>>>> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
>>>> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
>>>> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
>>>> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>>>>
>>> So what if he is in some mining lobby group, how does the man made
>>> global warming religion affect mining? How does it work, does he get
>>> paid to say what he says by the mining lobby and if he steps out of
>>> line they stop funding him? How does that make what he says wrong,
>>> have you even read any of his books or do you just say what other
>>> alarmists say?
>>> What about all the climate scientists on the government payroll?
>>
>> We know who are paying these scientists and can make up our minds, it is
>> the secret payments that are a worry. Now they are out in the open we
>> can make up our mind why the likes of Carter and his ilk are being paid
>> by an Institute running a climate skepticism campaign backed by large
>> GHG producers
>>
>>
> It's the AGW alarmists who are being bribed by the government. If they
> admit there is no problem the government cuts their funding.

may well be an element of that but it is out in the open unlike the secret
commissions to push a skeptics line that Carter has accepted

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Yet every cent of it will go back to those who end up paying for it. The
enigmatic magic of Labornomics: 100% + 10% = 100%

--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 17/02/2012 8:50 AM, dechucka wrote:
>

> "Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MeednS5NE8J16KDS...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 17/02/2012 1:15 AM, bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>>>
>>> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>>>
>>> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
>>> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
>>> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
>>> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>>>
>> So what if he is in some mining lobby group, how does the man made
>> global warming religion affect mining? How does it work, does he get
>> paid to say what he says by the mining lobby and if he steps out of
>> line they stop funding him? How does that make what he says wrong,
>> have you even read any of his books or do you just say what other
>> alarmists say?
>> What about all the climate scientists on the government payroll?
>
> We know who are paying these scientists and can make up our minds, it is
> the secret payments that are a worry.

Clearly, most people do _not_ have an understanding as to why it is in
the best (financial) interests of supposedly hallowed bastions of
science, to organize the shop-front as a pro-AGW display. They are under
the misimpression that a university (for instance) "supports" AGW
because its brochure says so, yet there will actually be the usual range
of believers & non-believers within its ranks.

> Now they are out in the open we
> can make up our mind why the likes of Carter and his ilk are being paid
> by an Institute running a climate skepticism campaign backed by large
> GHG producers

While scientists will look at the facts. Unfortunately, most of the
public (the "we" to whom you refer) have no idea of how to think
scientifically.

>
>> Why can only people like Plimer be bribed but not the people you agree
>> with? What would happen if they admitted there was no problem, the
>> government would cut their funding.
>> And Monckton is a liar and not a scientist, let's see you religious
>> people criticise Lord Gore.
>
> Gore is up there with Monckton, loud mouth doesn't understand what he is
> spouting

Don't know much about either, but I'm still waiting for somebody to
discredit Monckton's calculation (using IPCC methods and data) that the
carbon dioxide tax will do nothing measurable to "save" the temperature
of the planet:

The central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming that would be
forestalled by 2020 if Australia cut carbon emissions stepwise until by
2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions is – wait for it, wait for it
– a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius*, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a
Celsius degree. Not even measurable with our very best instruments! For
the entire world to do the same it's <0.004°C. The year-to-year
fluctuations totally swap this "saving".

A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the
IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the
atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold
exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide the above answer
by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the
warming forestalled.

Any warmist takers? Anybody? Anyone?

<sound of crickets>

[g w con@agwcon AGWCon]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

http://tinyurl.com/7833zps

Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:

Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.

A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
was one.

It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
AGW organisation. LOL

All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

national or international standing *bar none* who believe ?that human

activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
laughing.
------------

STILL PUSHING YOUR FAKE CONSENSUS?






Why Leftists/Warmists Feel They Can Push The Lie That Most Of The World's
Top Scientists Are Believers In Manmade Global Warming



OR



How To Fabricate A Fake Scientific Consensus



THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS A TOTAL FAKE!



------------------------------------

ALSO: Keep in mind the following quote:



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

------------------------------------





So what is the source of the view that "most of the world's top scientists"
believe in catastrophic manmade global warming?



As usual, it's another typical leftist/warmist distortion of the true facts.



It comes about because the directors of the world's scientific
(undemocratically elected) organisations are mostly believers in the
"climate change is manmade and dangerous" claptrap despite the fact that
most of the members disagree.



ANY DISSENT FROM GENUINE SCIENTISTS IS RUTHLESSLY SUPPRESSED!





This phenomenon appears to be widespread.





Here is a case in point where the members of the APS revolted against their
directors' climate alarmism and one climate scientist even resigned in
protest ...







------------------------------------

Scientist Revolt Against APS Alarmism

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS
Council:

2 Nov 2009



An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society





"As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and
past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the
Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as
to more accurately represent the current state of the science:"



"Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While
substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant
climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that
20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the
historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In
addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines
beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and
animals."



"Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar
variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's
climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models
appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and
anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future
climate."



"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects
of all processes - natural and human --on the Earth's climate and the
biosphere's response to climate change, and promotes technological options
for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause."



APS News; January 2008 Volume 17, Number 1



http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html







------------------------------------







True Scientists Respond To APS Lies

The APS Responds!

Deconstructing The APS Response To Dr. Hal Lewis Resignation

October 13 2010



Below is the press release from the American Physical Society, responding to
the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday,
October 8th.



APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis
have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I've
gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in
the document below.





October 12, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tawanda W. Johnson

Press Secretary

APS Physics

529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20045-2065



Phone: 202-662-8702

Fax: 202-662-8711

tjoh...@aps.org



APS Comments on Harold Lewis' Resignation of his Society Membership



WASHINGTON, DC

In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A.
Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis,
emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
announced that he was resigning his APS membership.



In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following
statement:



There is no truth to Dr. Lewis' assertion that APS policy statements are
driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of
more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in
developing its statements.







======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed
literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee
had signed off on a more moderate Statement.

======================================







The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS
Council - the Society's democratically elected governing body - to do so.







======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html

.delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members,
including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels.
Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the
Society conduct an independent study and assessment.

As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider
the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007
APS Statement
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm . "[APS
Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum
on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide
vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically
unsound statements." Evidently physicists should be excluded from
inputting on a question of physics; only "physics monks" are entitled to do
so ex cathedra .

======================================







Dr. Lewis' specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting
financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the
operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary
stake in such funding.





======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007
APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a
large international bank
http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html

The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure
investors is safe.not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other
members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh,
of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities
depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions .

Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS
2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under
consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had
been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at
DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee
member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory
at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.

======================================







Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and
therefore the vast majority of the Society's members derive no personal
benefit from such research support.







======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies
such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor's office that the APS
will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of
taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has
been silent on the documented practice by some climate "scientists" aimed at
preventing opposing research from being published.

======================================









On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all
reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

?Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

?Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its
increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and







======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly
saturated.

======================================









?The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.







======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

Well, it depends on what you mean by "dwell time." If it is the
conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the
statement is wrong - by a lot.. The IPCC's Bern carbon cycle model
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html
gets a 16 year half life. If it is the time for the last molecule to get
picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless. At the very least, the
statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.

======================================









On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS
continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the
extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained
increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.









======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself. However, the phrase
"climate disruptions" is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently
introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/

, evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human
causes. It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this
new phrase.

======================================







In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally
rejects Dr. Lewis' claim that global warming is a "scam" and a
"pseudoscientific fraud."







=====================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

What we have here is a bait and switch. No one is saying that the
greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the 'scam'
charge from its real target to the trivial. The fraud/scam is to be found
in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will
be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid;
and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.

======================================







Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit
opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant
commentary from APS members, the Society's Panel on Public Affairs finalized
an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance
of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.









======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual
whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming
alarm. And you have to keep your eye on the pea. The dispute was not over
the "significance" of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the
statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try
to explain what the original statement meant. Not a good sign that they
got it right the first time.

======================================







Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS
is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront
research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.





======================================

RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a
group of five members that included Dr. Lewis. Also, the Council has not
yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being "organized."
It is being considered. No formal charter or bylaws have been set down.
What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes.
This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.

======================================







Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.









====================================== RESPONSE TO APS LIE:

APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement,
with its infamous phrase, "The evidence is incontrovertible," despite the
fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.

======================================







About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading
physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in
academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and
internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge,
NY, and Washington, DC.



Tawanda W. Johnson

Press Secretary

APS Physics

529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20045-2065

Phone: 202-662-8702

Fax: 202-662-8711

tjoh...@aps.org





======================================

This page is available as a PDF here: APS Press Release Deconstruction

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/aps-press-release-deconstruction.pdf

======================================









Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:

I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors.



It relates to: "This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption
lines are nearly saturated."



The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional
amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming.
Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the
effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average
temperature by only about 1ºC. - if there were no other climate effects
involved.



However, these other effects, generally called "feedbacks," can amplify or
attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2.



The most prominent feedback is the "cloud-water vapor feedback," which is
very difficult to calculate or determine empirically.



The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive,
giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2ºC to 4.5ºC for doubling, with
a most likely value of 3ºC.



However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value,
much closer to the zero feedback value of 1ºC, or even lower.



The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the
debate.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/







------------------------------------



Top Climate Scientist Warns: The Warming Is Exaggerated And We Can't Stop It
Anyway

March 10 2011





On Monday this week, one of the world's top climate scientists exposed both
Brown and Gillard for the dangerous shysters they are



Here's some of that that damning testimony of John R. Christy, Distinguished
Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama's State Climatologist, Director of
the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and former Lead Author of IPCC assessments.



THE FLOODS WERE NOTHING UNUSUAL, AND PART OF NATURAL VARIABILITY



The tragic flooding in the second half of 2010 in NE Australia was examined
in two ways,

(1) in terms of financial costs and

(2) in terms of climate history.



First, when one normalizes the flood costs year by year, meaning if one
could imagine that the infrastructure now in place was unchanging during the
entire study period, the analysis shows there are no long-term trends in
damages. In an update of Crompton and McAneney (2008) of normalized disaster
losses in Australia which includes an estimate for 2010, they show
absolutely no trend since 1966.



Secondly, regarding the recent Australian flooding as a physical event in
the context climate history (with the estimated 2010 maximum river height
added to the chart below) one sees a relative lull in flooding events after
1900. Only four events reached the moderate category in the past 110 years,
while 14 such events were recorded in the 60 years before 1900. Indeed, the
recent flood magnitude had been exceeded six times in the last 170 years,
twice by almost double the level of flooding as observed in 2010. Such
history charts indicate that severe flooding is an extreme event that has
occurred from natural, unforced variability.



THE WORLD ISN'T WARMING ANYTHING LIKE AS FAST AS THE GLOBAL WARMISTS'
MODELS WARNED IT WOULD



As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate
datasets from scratch to document what the climate has done and to test
assertions and hypotheses about climate change....



I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32
years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new
underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric
temperature, which is still only one

third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era
(+0.26°C/decade.)



There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly
suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive
to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate
system ...



TRYING TO "STOP" GLOBAL WARMING WITH THINGS LIKE A CARBON DIOXIDE TAX OR
EMISSIONS TRADING IS A WASTE OF MONEY





The evidence above suggests that climate models overestimate the response of
temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Even so, using these climate model
simulations we calculate that the impact of legislative actions being
considered on the global temperature is essentially imperceptible. These
actions will not result in a measurable climate effect that can be
attributable or predictable with any level of confidence, especially at the
regional level. Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize
civilization's main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons
beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered.



Why on earth are we persisting in this folly?





http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Christy.pdf





WARNING:

GREENIE WARMIST CLAPTRAP FOLLOWS .



Greens leader Bob Brown claimed the Brisbane floods were caused by
coal-miners:



"It's the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must
take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing
unfolding now."



That one statement alone - nonsensically false, alarmist and opportunist -
should have reduced him permanently to a figure of fun in a healthy
democracy.



And now Julia Gillard claims we need nothing less than a great tax on carbon
emissions, to totally transform our economy, if we are to help save the
planet from "apocalyptic man-made warming."



Why do journalists credit these two shameless alarmists and their
fraudulent, ruinous schemes to "fix" a problem that exists nowhere but in
discredited computer models?





======================================





"Heir To Einstein" Scientist Tries To Knock Some Sense Into A Thick Warmist
Skull



"The climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is
close to understanding it."



"Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are
sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the
"experts" are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate
models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real."



February 27 2011



World renowned physicist Freeman Dyson starts an email debate with a warmist
journalist from the Independent - one that ends with a bollocking:



From: Steve Connor

To: Freeman Dyson



You are one of the most famous living scientists, credited as a visionary
who has reshaped scientific thinking. Some have called you the "heir to
Einstein", yet you are also a "climate sceptic" who questions the consensus
on global warming and its link with carbon dioxide emissions. Could we start
by finding where we agree?

I take it you accept for instance that carbon dioxide is a powerful
greenhouse gas that warms the planet

(1); that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since direct
measurements began several decades ago

(2); and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past
800,000 years

(3), if you take longer records into account, such as ice-core data.



Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of
burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the
past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer (4)?

Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only
be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5).

Climate scientists say there is no other reasonable explanation for the
warming they insist is happening (6), which is why we need to consider doing
something about it (7).

What part of this do you accept and what do you reject?





From: Freeman Dyson

To: Steve Connor



First of all, please cut out the mention of Einstein. To compare me to
Einstein is silly and annoying.



Answers to your questions are:

yes (1),

yes (2),

yes (3),

maybe (4),

no (5),

no (6),

no (7).



There are six good reasons for saying no to the last three assertions.

First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid
dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full
of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models
describe very poorly.

Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance
doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like
Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer.

Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human
activities, as we know from studying the past.

Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other
carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as
large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean,
as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs.

Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both
to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better
known and probably more important than the climatic effects.

Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an
immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.







[..] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.

Dyson answers .







From: Freeman Dyson

To: Steve Connor



When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that
continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener.
It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt
that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there
had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among
a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that
the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do
not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to
be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have
been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to
believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think
outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think
alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and
sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun
to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.



Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments
have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become
politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the
degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.



I am glad we are now talking about more general issues and not about
technical details. I do not pretend to be an expert about the details.







[..] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.

Dyson answers .







From: Freeman Dyson

To: Steve Connor



I have this unfortunate habit of answering email immediately, which is in
the long run not sustainable. So I will answer this one and then remain
silent for three days.



Of course I am not expecting you to agree with me. The most I expect is that
you might listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions
concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies
proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to
China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great
harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a
food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political
alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians.
Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by
politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate
experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the
disease that they claim to cure.



I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less
one-sided view of the issues.







[.] Thick-headed warmist claptrap snipped.

In desperation at the continued, thick-headed warmist claptrap emanating
from Connor, Freeman Dyson just gives up.







From: Freeman Dyson

To: Steve Connor



My three days of silence are over, and I decided I have no wish to continue
this discussion. Your last message just repeats the same old party line that
we have many good reasons to distrust. You complain that people who are
sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should
we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep
an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading
your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from
disagreeing.



With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one
day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as
it is for a good scientist.



Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson







http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyso-2224912.html







Warmest Regards



B O N Z O



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."

"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"

William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.



"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:



"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"

Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher



"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"

Mark Lynas, The God Species

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Have you seen Gore's laughable film? There's a litany of lies in that
one; so much so that the High Court in the UK won't allow it to be used
to influence children, unless the lies are pointed out to them
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Bullshit. How much of *our* money is being spent on the sum total of AGW
schemes per annum?

[g w cro ck@agwcrock AGWCrock]

"AGWCon" <a g w con@a g w con> wrote in message
news:4f3d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>

> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

> national or international standing *bar none* who believe ?that human

> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
> laughing.

------------------------------------



Climate Scientist Dr Roy Spencer On The Fake Consensus.:



Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way?



When I have pressed them on the science over the years, they all retreat to
the position that getting away from fossil fuels is the "right thing to do
anyway".



In other words, they have let their worldviews, their politics, their
economic understanding (or lack thereof) affect their scientific judgment.



I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their
behavior.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jhk4s7$hc0$3...@dont-email.me...

All out in the open AFAIK unlike Carter's secret payments.

I knew long ago when reading Journals it was a good idea to know where the
money is coming from to than have an idea of the veracity of articles.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhk2ro$91c$1...@dont-email.me...

But a lot like you listen to Carter who we now find has been receiving
secret payments from an Institute pushing a skeptics line. If it was out in
the open than that would be OK

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 17/02/2012 11:55 AM, AGWCrock wrote:
> "AGWCon"<a g w con@a g w con> wrote in message
> news:4f3d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "bringyagrogalong"<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>>
>> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
>> national or international standing *bar none* who believe ?that human
>> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
>> laughing.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Climate Scientist Dr Roy Spencer On The Fake Consensus.:
>
>
>
> Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way?

Money. Pure & simple.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

My investment portfolio payments aren't "out in the open" either. So
what? And how, according to your tin hat, are they "secret"? Do they go
into a Swiss bank account?

> I knew long ago when reading Journals it was a good idea to know where
> the money is coming from to than have an idea of the veracity of articles.

Excellent. So you will know not to take any notice of publications from
the CSIRO or BOM, who are funded by a warmist-AGW Greens-Labor
government. But using *our* money.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Carter happens to be a climate scientist, unlike Flannery, for instance.
But scientists look at the science, not some sort of conspiratorial tin
hat paranoia like you are suggesting. You wouldn't understand.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhkctf$sgc$1...@dont-email.me...

They were not disclosed before

>
>> I knew long ago when reading Journals it was a good idea to know where
>> the money is coming from to than have an idea of the veracity of
>> articles.
>
> Excellent. So you will know not to take any notice of publications from
> the CSIRO or BOM, who are funded by a warmist-AGW Greens-Labor government.
> But using *our* money.

You are an idiot

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhkd3g$tf1$1...@dont-email.me...

It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be it.

I am for openness

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Disclosed to whom? Who has a right to know about them?

>>> I knew long ago when reading Journals it was a good idea to know where
>>> the money is coming from to than have an idea of the veracity of
>>> articles.
>>
>> Excellent. So you will know not to take any notice of publications
>> from the CSIRO or BOM, who are funded by a warmist-AGW Greens-Labor
>> government. But using *our* money.
>
> You are an idiot

So you have no comeback. Thought so.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound, not
that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the benefit
of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his scientific
treatments?

> I am for openness
You're for whatever the voices tell you to be.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhkhh5$fu0$1...@dont-email.me...

We know where their money is coming from we didn't KNOW with Carter

[dechucka]

snip

>> It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be it.
> To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound, not
> that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the benefit
> of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his scientific
> treatments?

I disagree ( as I would with any scientist ) his recieving of secret
commissions. BTW which of his papers have you read?

>
>> I am for openness
> You're for whatever the voices tell you to be.

I am for openness in everything when it may affect your job

[g w cro ck@agwcrock AGWCrock]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iJ6dnZ9BLbD9faDS...@westnet.com.au...

Your fellow leftists/warmists are definitely not for openness!
What are they hiding?

Here's a "scientist" who seems to have forgotten what true science is about
....
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU






JUDGE THESE "SCIENTISTS" BY THEIR ACTIONS!



First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead author Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of these
changes.



"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."



"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."



"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."





Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".



"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to
beat the crap out of him."

Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[Referring to global warming skeptic Pat Michaels]



"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for
Keith's to hide the decline."

Phil Jones email, 16 Nov 1999



"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."

Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005



"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones Director, The CRU

[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]



"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't .there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".

Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research



"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "

Phil Jones Director, The CRU



"The "scientific" community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I
said the world had cooled from 1998. OK IT HAS but it is only 7 years of
data and it isn't statistically significant."

Phil Jones Email To John Christy, Jul 5 2005

http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt



"We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995

[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck who mistakenly thought he was
talking to a fellow warmist, which Prof Deming didn't deny in an email
response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.]



"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU



"I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set.
Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are
worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of
Sydney's."

[E-mail from Dr Daly 9 August 1996. Dr Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal
in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. It is clear from
the tone of his e-mail that he considers this obvious solar influence on
climate as unwelcome news.]



"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they
were talking about their role as lead authors for the IPCC. And they were
talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the
US would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."

Dr John Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville on CNN May 2 2007.



"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider



"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration



"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991



Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?



Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.



"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Neither you should. When I worked for Defence I was paid to give
lectures to various tertiary institutes. The public didn't need to know
about that. Get some perspective dickhead.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 17/02/2012 4:06 PM, dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
>>> It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be
>>> it.
>> To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound,
>> not that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the
>> benefit of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his
>> scientific treatments?
>
> I disagree ( as I would with any scientist ) his recieving of secret
> commissions.

They are not secret. They are of a personal nature however, and you have
no need to be sticking your nose into them.

> BTW which of his papers have you read?

You should read "Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for
Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?" and "The Myth of Dangerous
Human-Caused Climate Change." You might just get educated a little. Do
come back with all the factual and analytical errors you find, won't
you. ;-)

>>
>>> I am for openness
>> You're for whatever the voices tell you to be.
>
> I am for openness in everything when it may affect your job

Strange comment, even from you.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

But apparently such corruption is OK according to dechucka, because we
know their lucre is coming out of the public purse. (Even though we
don't get to find out how much.) But if someone like Carter is paid by a
private organisation to disseminate the truth:

> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> from natural variation."
>
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

then this is some sort of cardinal sin.

[Gordon Levi]

Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:

>When I worked for Defence I was paid to give
>lectures to various tertiary institutes. The public didn't need to know
>about that.

We now have our very own whistle blower! Tell us about the secret
payments you received from Defence and how and why the government
wanted to influence the students or faculty. Which government? Which
policies?

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhl2u3$jsc$2...@dont-email.me...

If you were receiving money from a Defense Company and pushing their line
than we should know as it would have gone to your credibility.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhl3cd$mc8$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 17/02/2012 4:06 PM, dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be
>>>> it.
>>> To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound,
>>> not that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the
>>> benefit of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his
>>> scientific treatments?
>>
>> I disagree ( as I would with any scientist ) his recieving of secret
>> commissions.
> They are not secret. They are of a personal nature however, and you have
> no need to be sticking your nose into them.

Certainly do if he is recieving payment to push their line. it goes to
credibility

>
>> BTW which of his papers have you read?
> You should read "Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for
> Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?" and "The Myth of Dangerous
> Human-Caused Climate Change." You might just get educated a little. Do
> come back with all the factual and analytical errors you find, won't you.
> ;-)

So should you

>
>>>
>>>> I am for openness
>>> You're for whatever the voices tell you to be.
>>
>> I am for openness in everything when it may affect your job
> Strange comment, even from you.

I like to know where the money is coming from so I can judge peoples
credibility

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

No secret payments. I was paid by the institutes at their standard
rates. I wanted to influence students or faculties because they ask for
people (not just me) to deliver lectures on specialist topics. CSIRO,
for instance, do/did the same thing. Maybe they were trying to brainwash
students/faculties into believing in AGW? And it was the Australian
government. I don't recall any policies being discussed. HTH

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Carter is presenting science, not pushing a propaganda line or a
product; a distinction I wouldn't expect you to understand. Again, have
you ever read any of the material he's contributed to at Heartlands? It
doesn't differ from what appears on
http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/az/JCUDEV_014954.html

So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 18/02/2012 8:21 AM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jhl3cd$mc8$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 17/02/2012 4:06 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>> It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be
>>>>> it.
>>>> To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound,
>>>> not that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the
>>>> benefit of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his
>>>> scientific treatments?
>>>
>>> I disagree ( as I would with any scientist ) his recieving of secret
>>> commissions.
>> They are not secret. They are of a personal nature however, and you
>> have no need to be sticking your nose into them.
>
> Certainly do if he is recieving payment to push their line. it goes to
> credibility

There is no "line" fuckwit. He's presenting a critique of science.
That's what scientists do. And if you want to call it a "line" then it's
the exact same line as appears on the papers on the JCU site he
authored, which I pointed out to you but I presume you haven't bothered
to look at.

>>
>>> BTW which of his papers have you read?
>> You should read "Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for
>> Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?" and "The Myth of Dangerous
>> Human-Caused Climate Change." You might just get educated a little. Do
>> come back with all the factual and analytical errors you find, won't
>> you. ;-)
>
> So should you

I've not found any. How about you?

>>>>
>>>>> I am for openness
>>>> You're for whatever the voices tell you to be.
>>>
>>> I am for openness in everything when it may affect your job
>> Strange comment, even from you.
>
> I like to know where the money is coming from so I can judge peoples
> credibility

Why not just e-mail JCU with a request for all of Carter's outside
"interests" as they have been declared by him to the university. They
will probably tell you to fuck off. You clearly have no idea of how
scientific credibility is judged. HINT: It's to do with quality of the
science, nothing more.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhmv7s$bcm$1...@dont-email.me...

but he is being paid by an Institute whose aim is to discredit AGW backed by
groups with vested interests in producing GHG

>
> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with Heartlands?
> You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.

His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands were
secret till the leak. If you can't see the difference so be it

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhmvku$cum$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 18/02/2012 8:21 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jhl3cd$mc8$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 17/02/2012 4:06 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> It seems Carter is a mouth piece for sale. If that is OK by you so be
>>>>>> it.
>>>>> To me he seems like a scientist. His papers also appear to be sound,
>>>>> not that I'd expect you to have read any of them. But giving you the
>>>>> benefit of the doubt, what specifically do you disagree with in his
>>>>> scientific treatments?
>>>>
>>>> I disagree ( as I would with any scientist ) his recieving of secret
>>>> commissions.
>>> They are not secret. They are of a personal nature however, and you
>>> have no need to be sticking your nose into them.
>>
>> Certainly do if he is recieving payment to push their line. it goes to
>> credibility
>
> There is no "line" fuckwit. He's presenting a critique of science. That's
> what scientists do. And if you want to call it a "line" then it's the
> exact same line as appears on the papers on the JCU site he authored,
> which I pointed out to you but I presume you haven't bothered to look at.

He is did not receive secret payments from JCU like he did from Heartlands

snip

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

He is presenting science. It's not a matter of pick a team and barrack
for it. Your PP hack politics doesn't have a place in science, but you
wouldn't understand that.

>>
>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>
> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands were
> secret till the leak.

What leak?

> If you can't see the difference so be it

It is you who can't see that this "leak" was just business as usual.
Your tin hat has turned a standard payslip into a Watergate.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

He did not receive secret payments from Heartlands. JCU knew about them.
The fact that you didn't is because you're of no significance to the
"issue".

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhn6rc$9uc$1...@dont-email.me...

but you claim that of the AGW cocencus

>
>>>
>>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
>>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>>
>> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands were
>> secret till the leak.
> What leak?

try and keep up. OP will help

>
>> If you can't see the difference so be it
> It is you who can't see that this "leak" was just business as usual.

Sad but true

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhn6ug$9uc$2...@dont-email.me...

did they? Cite please

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

There is no AGW consensus.

>>
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
>>>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>>>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>>>
>>> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands were
>>> secret till the leak.
>> What leak?
>
> try and keep up. OP will help

I wasn't a leak. It was never information which was trying to be
contained. If somebody finds and publishes my pay slip, hitherto unknown
to the public, it's hardly a leak just because it hasn't appeared in the
public's face before. Get a clue.

>>
>>> If you can't see the difference so be it
>> It is you who can't see that this "leak" was just business as usual.
>
>
> Sad but true

You are indeed a sad case, if all you have to counter the massive and
damning Climategate leaks is an unpublished and unconcealed pay slip.

>> Your tin hat has turned a standard payslip into a Watergate.
>

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

See troppo's post <Xns9FFCA3B67C...@210.8.230.25> which you
shied away from. If JCU didn't know about his work-related activities
(paid or otherwise) there'd have been action taken by them against
Carter. Ask troppo - he would know better than you, being a former JCU
academic staff member. Then the warmist alarmist bloggers would actually
have something to squeal & scream about. As it stands, they have nothing
other than a payslip Carter didn't take the trouble of publishing in the
daily press. Boy, you AGWers are so desperate now.

[dechucka]

>>>
>>> He is presenting science. It's not a matter of pick a team and barrack
>>> for it. Your PP hack politics doesn't have a place in science, but you
>>> wouldn't understand that.
>>
>> but you claim that of the AGW cocencus
>
> There is no AGW consensus.

really, cite please

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
>>>>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>>>>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>>>>
>>>> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands
>>>> were
>>>> secret till the leak.
>>> What leak?
>>
>> try and keep up. OP will help
>
> I wasn't a leak. It was never information which was trying to be
> contained. If somebody finds and publishes my pay slip, hitherto unknown
> to the public, it's hardly a leak just because it hasn't appeared in the
> public's face before. Get a clue.

Of course it was a leak

>
>>>
>>>> If you can't see the difference so be it
>>> It is you who can't see that this "leak" was just business as usual.
>>
>>
>> Sad but true
>
> You are indeed a sad case, if all you have to counter the massive and
> damning Climategate leaks is an unpublished and unconcealed pay slip.

I'm not just pointing out the nasty side of the skeptics case, funded by
large companies with a vested interest in producing GHGs

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jho8c2$kms$1...@dont-email.me...

so you don't know if JCU knew or not. You are agreeing that they should of
in the spirit of openness

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 19/02/2012 6:25 AM, dechucka wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> He is presenting science. It's not a matter of pick a team and barrack
>>>> for it. Your PP hack politics doesn't have a place in science, but you
>>>> wouldn't understand that.
>>>
>>> but you claim that of the AGW cocencus
>>
>> There is no AGW consensus.
>
> really, cite please

Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base the
"consensus" figure on:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/

75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
questionnaire, a consensus does not make.

Of course, if you can cite a different study (with methods, numbers
involved and results) which shows some sort of figure which can be even
entertained as statistically significant, I'd be very pleased to hear of
it. What actual percentage consensus are you relying upon? There must be
a number if it actually exists. :-)

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on a JCU
>>>>>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>>>>>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>>>>>
>>>>> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands
>>>>> were
>>>>> secret till the leak.
>>>> What leak?
>>>
>>> try and keep up. OP will help
>>
>> I wasn't a leak. It was never information which was trying to be
>> contained. If somebody finds and publishes my pay slip, hitherto
>> unknown to the public, it's hardly a leak just because it hasn't
>> appeared in the public's face before. Get a clue.
>
> Of course it was a leak

No. There was nothing secret or covert about it. It was like releasing
how much a JCU typist got as a payment for overtime. Not of any interest
to anybody, so The Age was not informed of it to publish it on the front
page. Like I said, get a clue.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't see the difference so be it
>>>> It is you who can't see that this "leak" was just business as usual.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sad but true
>>
>> You are indeed a sad case, if all you have to counter the massive and
>> damning Climategate leaks is an unpublished and unconcealed pay slip.
>
> I'm not just pointing out the nasty side of the skeptics case, funded by
> large companies with a vested interest in producing GHGs

You mean you don't like the truth about the AGW scam revealed.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

The very absence of a "leak" about it confirms it. The fact that the
warmist assassins were able to get to such a trivial fine detail, as
they did, means that they would *certainly* have tried to make headlines
over a breach of ethics at JCU.

> You are agreeing that they should of in the spirit of openness

"Should of"? Should _have_ what? Known about his token paid work for
Heartlands? Of course - it's common organizational policy (government,
academic, private business). And clearly they did, or we'd have had a
warmist shitstorm about it already.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhpg3b$vit$1...@dont-email.me...

Of course it was a leak. Carter is in the same situation as your mates Jones
and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhpgfu$1k2$1...@dont-email.me...

Troppo's changed his mind, try again

[Gordon Levi]

Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:

>
>Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base the
>"consensus" figure on:
>http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/
>
>75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
>questionnaire, a consensus does not make.

No data, no methods and no mention of 75 or 77. I think you have cited
the wrong article from your collection of minority opinions on climate
change.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 19/02/2012 11:52 AM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jhpg3b$vit$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/02/2012 6:25 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is presenting science. It's not a matter of pick a team and
>>>>>> barrack
>>>>>> for it. Your PP hack politics doesn't have a place in science, but
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> wouldn't understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> but you claim that of the AGW cocencus
>>>>
>>>> There is no AGW consensus.
>>>
>>> really, cite please
>>
>> Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base
>> the "consensus" figure on:
>> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/
>>
>>
>> 75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
>> questionnaire, a consensus does not make.
>>
>> Of course, if you can cite a different study (with methods, numbers
>> involved and results) which shows some sort of figure which can be
>> even entertained as statistically significant, I'd be very pleased to
>> hear of it. What actual percentage consensus are you relying upon?
>> There must be a number if it actually exists. :-)

So where's your consensus?

>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're saying that the "line he is pushing" is OK if it's on
>>>>>>>> a JCU
>>>>>>>> website, but unethical if the same material is associated with
>>>>>>>> Heartlands? You're truly a non-science political agenda hack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His payments from JCU are above board, his payments from Heartlands
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> secret till the leak.
>>>>>> What leak?
>>>>>
>>>>> try and keep up. OP will help
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't a leak. It was never information which was trying to be
>>>> contained. If somebody finds and publishes my pay slip, hitherto
>>>> unknown to the public, it's hardly a leak just because it hasn't
>>>> appeared in the public's face before. Get a clue.
>>>
>>> Of course it was a leak
>> No. There was nothing secret or covert about it. It was like releasing
>> how much a JCU typist got as a payment for overtime. Not of any
>> interest to anybody, so The Age was not informed of it to publish it
>> on the front page. Like I said, get a clue.
>

> Of course it was a leak.

Who was trying to keep it a secret? Moron.

> Carter is in the same situation as your mates
> Jones and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy

I don't know much about Jones or Laws, except that they scare shit out
of the leftards.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I know. He's shown that your accusations were based on your
shit-ignorance. JCU did not have a need to know about any payment to
Carter. I presume you will be apologizing to Bob for your false and
baseless accusation.

[Seon]

That is a very cult like accusasion. He doesn't blindly accept what he
is told by others in the AGW religion so he must be bribed by the oil
companies ie a heratic.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

You're right. Should have been:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

But the Financial Post hardly represents any sort of minority. Unless
you have some sort of consensus to back that up. Tell me what you think
about how the current touted 93% consensus was arrived at. I'd be
interested to hear your thoughts.

Interesting too is that dechucka didn't pick that up, but chose to
remain silent. :-) Begs the question, did he even look at it, or did he
realize his bluff had been called and just hoped his silence would go
unnoticed. ;-)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhppgp$5t3$2...@dont-email.me...

Heartland and Carter, remember he won't even say what the money was for

>
>> Carter is in the same situation as your mates
>> Jones and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy
> I don't know much about Jones or Laws, except that they scare shit out of
> the leftards.

and got caught in a Carterese cash for comment scandal

[dechucka]

"Seon" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:FOWdnd14lMA57t3S...@westnet.com.au...

seems he is :-(

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhpplk$5t3$3...@dont-email.me...

no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who claimed JCU knew
about the payments.

Another fine pickle you've got yourself in

[Gordon Levi]

Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:

>On 19/02/2012 1:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base the
>>> "consensus" figure on:
>>> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/
>>>
>>> 75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
>>> questionnaire, a consensus does not make.
>>
>> No data, no methods and no mention of 75 or 77. I think you have cited
>> the wrong article from your collection of minority opinions on climate
>> change.
>
>You're right. Should have been:
>http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

Now that is an interesting application of your take on the "scientific
method". You cite a totally flawed survey that concludes that there
_is_ a consensus in an effort to demonstrate that there is _not_ one.
Do you believe that there is no consensus and, if so, what evidence do
you have for your belief?

>
>But the Financial Post hardly represents any sort of minority. Unless
>you have some sort of consensus to back that up. Tell me what you think
>about how the current touted 93% consensus was arrived at. I'd be
>interested to hear your thoughts.

As for my thoughts, I have provided the list of scientific societies
that have endorsed the IPCC's findings a dozen times. In response you
have repeatedly argued that there is "grass roots" disagreement among
the members based purely on your supposed knowledge of "how those
societies work". If there is evidence of widespread disagreement, why
do you need to rely on a piece of appalling "research" that concludes
the opposite?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Nor should he have to. Is the ATO asking about it? Anybody with a need
to know? If not, I'd be doing the same - telling them to (as Rudd would
put it) fuck off. You're forgetting too, that it's less than a dole
payment - some scandal!

>>
>>> Carter is in the same situation as your mates
>>> Jones and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy
>> I don't know much about Jones or Laws, except that they scare shit out
>> of the leftards.
>
> and got caught in a Carterese cash for comment scandal

He didn't get caught at anything. He just told no-count little snots
like your self to fuck off and mind their own business.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

How much were the "secret commissions"? Did they get laundered first
through a numbered Swiss Bank account?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.

> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in

Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the sensitivity
of your tin foil hat.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 19/02/2012 5:38 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2012 1:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base the
>>>> "consensus" figure on:
>>>> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/
>>>>
>>>> 75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
>>>> questionnaire, a consensus does not make.
>>>
>>> No data, no methods and no mention of 75 or 77. I think you have cited
>>> the wrong article from your collection of minority opinions on climate
>>> change.
>>
>> You're right. Should have been:
>> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/
>
> Now that is an interesting application of your take on the "scientific
> method". You cite a totally flawed survey that concludes that there
> _is_ a consensus in an effort to demonstrate that there is _not_ one.
> Do you believe that there is no consensus and, if so, what evidence do
> you have for your belief?

This is bizarre even from you. I have always maintained that there was
no consensus. The one everybody uses is the parroting of the flawed
survey you've now been enlightened to. I have seen nothing else
published regarding how a consensus has been established - just that
there is a consensus. Do you have any source statistics by which this
claim can be verified? Or are you happy to simply believe there is a
consensus, because they tells you so?

>> But the Financial Post hardly represents any sort of minority. Unless
>> you have some sort of consensus to back that up. Tell me what you think
>> about how the current touted 93% consensus was arrived at. I'd be
>> interested to hear your thoughts.
>
> As for my thoughts, I have provided the list of scientific societies
> that have endorsed the IPCC's findings a dozen times. In response you
> have repeatedly argued that there is "grass roots" disagreement among
> the members based purely on your supposed knowledge of "how those
> societies work". If there is evidence of widespread disagreement, why
> do you need to rely on a piece of appalling "research" that concludes
> the opposite?

I don't rely on it for that purpose. I point out to ignoramuses who
claim there "is a consensus" that it's based on the fraudulent
"research" you've now become aware of. And as you say, I know institutes
of the type you mention well enough to realize that their shop fronts
have no bearing whatever on the spread of individual views within. For
reasons I've already given.

[Gordon Levi]

If you have something else, why not tell us what it is?

> I point out to ignoramuses who
>claim there "is a consensus" that it's based on the fraudulent
>"research" you've now become aware of.

Who uses this "research" to claim there is a consensus?

> And as you say, I know institutes
>of the type you mention well enough to realize that their shop fronts
>have no bearing whatever on the spread of individual views within. For
>reasons I've already given.

Precisely what evidence do you have that the "individual views within"
differ substantially from the "shop front". Not just your desire for
this to be true or that you know someone who agrees with you but some
evidence that satisfies your criteria of "scientific method".

There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to conduct
a survey. Start here <http://heartland.org/>.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Read the next paragraph:

>> I point out to ignoramuses who
>> claim there "is a consensus" that it's based on the fraudulent
>> "research" you've now become aware of.
>
> Who uses this "research" to claim there is a consensus?

Anybody who claims that there is a consensus, without knowing where this
"truth" comes from. You believe there is a consensus, don't you? Where
is the statistical survey upon which you base your beliefs?

>> And as you say, I know institutes
>> of the type you mention well enough to realize that their shop fronts
>> have no bearing whatever on the spread of individual views within. For
>> reasons I've already given.
>
> Precisely what evidence do you have that the "individual views within"
> differ substantially from the "shop front".

Personal experience is a good start.

> Not just your desire for
> this to be true or that you know someone who agrees with you but some
> evidence that satisfies your criteria of "scientific method".

Why would I want to try to apply the scientific method to something
which isn't science? Have you been drinking today BTW?

> There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
> you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
> no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to conduct
> a survey. Start here<http://heartland.org/>.

Sounds like you have. Makes no sense to me.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhq69o$jdc$1...@dont-email.me...

If your happy for "cash for comment " to occur fine. Show a very low mooral

>
>>>
>>>> Carter is in the same situation as your mates
>>>> Jones and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy
>>> I don't know much about Jones or Laws, except that they scare shit out
>>> of the leftards.
>>
>> and got caught in a Carterese cash for comment scandal
>
> He didn't get caught at anything. He just told no-count little snots like
> your self to fuck off and mind their own business.

poor oy he got caught accepting money from an organization who pays
scientists to push a skeptics line. His credibility is zero

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhq6dm$jdc$2...@dont-email.me...

Don't know

[dechucka]

snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who claimed JCU

>> knew about the payments.
>
> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.

but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again

>
>> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in
> Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the sensitivity of
> your tin foil hat.

poor oy you are all in a tither re one of your favorites being caught in a
cash for comment scandal

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jhpsn6$j85$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 19/02/2012 1:06 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax<gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Here is the data and methods for the most recent survey used to base the
>>> "consensus" figure on:
>>> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/09/it%E2%80%99s-official-there%E2%80%99s-no-consensus-on-climate-change/
>>>
>>> 75 out of 77 people, cherry picked from responses to a web
>>> questionnaire, a consensus does not make.
>>
>> No data, no methods and no mention of 75 or 77. I think you have cited
>> the wrong article from your collection of minority opinions on climate
>> change.
>
> You're right. Should have been:
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/
>
> But the Financial Post hardly represents any sort of minority. Unless you
> have some sort of consensus to back that up. Tell me what you think about
> how the current touted 93% consensus was arrived at. I'd be interested to
> hear your thoughts.
>
> Interesting too is that dechucka didn't pick that up, but chose to remain
> silent. :-)

If I didn't pick up on it I could hardly comment'

snip

[dechucka]

snip

> There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
> you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
> no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to conduct
> a survey. Start here <http://heartland.org/>.

:-)

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
DonH <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:f0462f23-5e05-44fa...@qt7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> http://tinyurl.com/7833zps
>
> Well let's see what these people have got to say about that:
>
> Lord (I have a cure for AIDS) Monckton; Tony (I believe in the
> Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) Abbott; Ian (I am a member of
> Gina Rinehart's mining lobby group) Plimer; and Alan (I was arrested
> in a public lavatory on two counts of outraging public decency) Jones.
>

> A thoroughly discredited and unsavoury group of weirdos if ever there
> was one.
>
> It should be amusing to watch that bunch of discredited dull-witted
> lowbrows trying to defend the activities of a discredited lowbrow anti-
> AGW organisation. LOL
>
> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
> national or international standing *bar none* who believe ?that human
> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
> laughing.
>
> ------------
>
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
> has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
> caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
> and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
> the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
> main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
>
> "The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
> quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
> Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
> global warming further.
>
> "We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".
>
> - Stephen Hawking
>
> # Yes, we are entitled to be sceptical of the sceptics.
> Seven billion humans, with massive technology, belching billions of
> tonnes of chimney (and vehicle) smoke into the air annually - and it has NO
> effect on anything?
> Of course, prior to 1800 AD, when humans were few in number, and
> science/technology was in its infancy - then our impact was negligible.
> But today? We can't move without impacting adversely on non-human
> Nature.
> Our race to extinction needs the most drastic and strenuous
> counter-measures.
> Carbon Tax or Trade is a feeble first step.

Feel free to pay all the taxes you want. :)

(Liberalism always at the end leads to coercion. Whenever a liberal says,
'let me help you,' run in the opposite direction. It means he wants to
control you.)

Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer

badass linux - gentoo 3.2.1

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

Regnad Kcin <nau...@again.net> wrote:

>
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>

> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

> national or international standing *bar none* who believe that human

> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
> laughing.
>

> _____________________________________________________
>
> Well that would be natural.
> Incontinent in body,
> incontinent of mind.
> QED

Hearsay, until you post the links to the full statements of said 'science
academies and scientific societies.' Also, it's important in evaluating the
science of a politically charged subject like AGW, to post the funding
sources of said researchers.

Also, scientific truth is not decided by a show of hands, but develops over
time as various theories and leads are ferreted out and subject to further
testing and refinement.

Especially when making social and fiscal policy which affect the livelihoods
of millions of human beings, you want to be sure that you don't inflict
needless suffering on the basis of a 'popular theory' that is later, like so
many are, found to be fallacious or incomplete.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I'm not generally. But I have enough experience in the area to be able
to distinguish an obvious token/nominal pittance for some editing work
(less than the dole, which Carter no doubt shrugged at) from big wads of
cash ($180k pa for 3 days appearance pw for instance) for "comment". You
are clearly clueless in this area, having had no experience with how it
works, whatsoever.

> Show a very low mooral

You show that you have again stuck your nose into an area you have no
idea about, and got it bitten again.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> Carter is in the same situation as your mates
>>>>> Jones and Laws, caught in a cash for comment controversy
>>>> I don't know much about Jones or Laws, except that they scare shit out
>>>> of the leftards.
>>>
>>> and got caught in a Carterese cash for comment scandal
>>
>> He didn't get caught at anything. He just told no-count little snots
>> like your self to fuck off and mind their own business.
>
> poor oy he got caught accepting money from an organization who pays
> scientists to push a skeptics line. His credibility is zero

He didn't get "caught" in any sense. Some busy bodies stuck their noses
into his personal affairs and found something he did which was not only
quite legitimate, but also in keeping with his usual work. dechucka's
credibility is zero. (As if you'd *ever* take notice of a scientist who
exposed the scam behind your AGW political agenda - LOL!)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhs34a$icb$1...@dont-email.me...

Your not generally but this is a bloke who you support so it is OK. What's
the word of I'm thinking of the describes you ...............

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Of course you don't. You just jumped on a viral conspiracy bandwagon and
are now struggling to squirm out of the fact that it was all a false
alarm. It's very obvious to all, so why not quit now. Grab the lifeline
to Nauru before you hit the bottom ... again.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 20/02/2012 7:12 AM, dechucka wrote:
> snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who claimed JCU
>>> knew about the payments.
>>
>> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
>> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.
>
> but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again

I corrected that in light of the information troppo provided for us.
Numerous times.

>>
>>> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in
>> Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the
>> sensitivity of your tin foil hat.
>
> poor oy you are all in a tither re one of your favorites being caught in
> a cash for comment scandal

Only under your tin hat. You've been had by a false alarm based in
warmist ignorance.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

You don't pick up on incorrect links which were intended to provide the
direct answer to the question you asked? You obviously either don't want
to see the answer, or weren't interested in the first place.


--

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Meaning? Perhaps you could enlighten me on what Gordon is trying to say
here. I thought he must have been on the turps.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhs3oc$l83$1...@dont-email.me...

Obviously they were secret

snip

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhs3tc$l83$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 20/02/2012 7:12 AM, dechucka wrote:
>> snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who claimed
>> JCU
>>>> knew about the payments.
>>>
>>> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
>>> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.
>>
>> but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again
>
> I corrected that in light of the information troppo provided for us.
> Numerous times.

cool so you were wrong

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jhs55e$qqv$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 20/02/2012 8:09 AM, dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>> There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
>>> you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
>>> no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to conduct
>>> a survey. Start here <http://heartland.org/>.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Meaning?

I was was smiling at his comment obviously

snip

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 20/02/2012 8:42 AM, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Regnad Kcin<nau...@again.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "bringyagrogalong"<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of
>> national or international standing *bar none* who believe that human
>> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
>> laughing.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>>
>> Well that would be natural.
>> Incontinent in body,
>> incontinent of mind.
>> QED
>
> Hearsay, until you post the links to the full statements of said 'science
> academies and scientific societies.'

We never get to see that, for all the chanting of this catchcry. I wish
_somebody_ would post a link to the study which determined this.

> Also, it's important in evaluating the
> science of a politically charged subject like AGW, to post the funding
> sources of said researchers.

Indeed. Posters like dechucka, normally "shocked" at scientists
receiving even token payments for services rendered to science, and who
place great emphasis on credibility and funding in such cases, fail to
even ask the simple question when it comes to studies which result in
pro-warmist conclusions. Strange that. :-)

> Also, scientific truth is not decided by a show of hands, but develops over
> time as various theories and leads are ferreted out and subject to further
> testing and refinement.

Most of the warmists haven't a clue as to how science works. They think
it's a matter of pick a side and barrack like mad for it, and the
supporters who yell loudest and swamp the voices of the opposition are
the winners.

> Especially when making social and fiscal policy which affect the livelihoods
> of millions of human beings, you want to be sure that you don't inflict
> needless suffering on the basis of a 'popular theory' that is later, like so
> many are, found to be fallacious or incomplete.

Especially in the light of revelations of the _real_ agenda behind the
AGW "movement":

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): But one must say clearly that we
redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously,
the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has
to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental
policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

He accepted a pittance for the work he did, which was probably a
standard practice/protocol. I'm sure he didn't leap at the chance of
grabbing, what, about $900 after tax? Like I said, when I delivered
presentations for institutes outside of DoD, I also agreed to do it for
some pittance, which I didn't care about one way or the other. In
science, many things are not done for the "cash for comment". AGW seems
to be the exception here, but then again it's not real science either,
so thee comparison is perhaps unfair.

> What's the word of I'm thinking of the describes you ...............

Ask your tin hat.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

There were no secret commissions. He ended up with about $900 after tax,
for probably dozens of hours work. Maybe Heartlands could be charged for
paying below the minimum wage?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 20/02/2012 12:13 PM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jhs3tc$l83$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 20/02/2012 7:12 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>> snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who
>>> claimed JCU
>>>>> knew about the payments.
>>>>
>>>> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
>>>> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.
>>>
>>> but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again
>>
>> I corrected that in light of the information troppo provided for us.
>> Numerous times.
>
> cool so you were wrong

You've been told that a dozen times. Just as you were wrong in stating
that it was "secret", that JCU had a right to about it and that there
was a conflict of interest with JCU. Bullshitting on 3 counts by
dechucka - nothing unusual in that.

>>>>
>>>>> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in
>>>> Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the
>>>> sensitivity of your tin foil hat.
>>>
>>> poor oy you are all in a tither re one of your favorites being caught in
>>> a cash for comment scandal
>>
>> Only under your tin hat. You've been had by a false alarm based in
>> warmist ignorance.

<I did your work for you and trimmed my old sig. Learn not to be so
slovenly and you might have a vague chance of gaining some rudimentary
maths/science competence. No guarantees though. :-) >

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhsf5j$6o5$1...@dont-email.me...

sold himself short in his cash for comments

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhsfet$7rs$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 20/02/2012 12:13 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jhs3tc$l83$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 20/02/2012 7:12 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who
>>>> claimed JCU
>>>>>> knew about the payments.
>>>>>
>>>>> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
>>>>> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.
>>>>
>>>> but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again
>>>
>>> I corrected that in light of the information troppo provided for us.
>>> Numerous times.
>>
>> cool so you were wrong
>
> You've been told that a dozen times. Just as you were wrong in stating
> that it was "secret", that JCU had a right to about it and that there was
> a conflict of interest with JCU. Bullshitting on 3 counts by dechucka -
> nothing unusual in that.

When your wrong you just can't make up Bullshit ( trademarf Tony Abbott)

>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in
>>>>> Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the
>>>>> sensitivity of your tin foil hat.
>>>>
>>>> poor oy you are all in a tither re one of your favorites being caught
>>>> in
>>>> a cash for comment scandal
>>>
>>> Only under your tin hat. You've been had by a false alarm based in
>>> warmist ignorance.
>
> <I did your work for you and trimmed my old sig. Learn not to be so
> slovenly and you might have a vague chance of gaining some rudimentary
> maths/science competence. No guarantees though. :-) >

?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Glad you understood it.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhse3n$2d2$1...@dont-email.me...

Classic cash for comment by Carter all be it that you claim he undersold
himself

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jhsg21$a5g$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 20/02/2012 12:28 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jhs55e$qqv$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 20/02/2012 8:09 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
>>>>> you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
>>>>> no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to conduct
>>>>> a survey. Start here <http://heartland.org/>.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Meaning?
>>
>> I was was smiling at his comment obviously
>
> Glad you understood it.

anyone with normal comprehension abilities could

[Seon]

Don't worry about Dechucka, he's just another member of the man made
global warming religion.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

No. Since it wasn't cash for comments, he probably just took the
pittance fee as a matter of protocol, as I have done on numerous
occasions. Just BTW, many organizations have a policy that people doing
work for them must be on their payroll, for the purposes of insurance,
indemnity etc. As such, they must be paid some amount, even the token
pittance Carter received for his doubtless untold hours of selflessness.
But you wouldn't have thought about that either, before you posted your
viral warmist hoax.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 20/02/2012 2:48 PM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jhsfet$7rs$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 20/02/2012 12:13 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jhs3tc$l83$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 20/02/2012 7:12 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> snip>> no allegations by me just questions. You are the one who
>>>>> claimed JCU
>>>>>>> knew about the payments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They would have had he been a full-time staff member. But as troppo
>>>>>> educated you, he is not and has no need to tell JCU squat.
>>>>>
>>>>> but you said JCU knew. Sctrewed up again
>>>>
>>>> I corrected that in light of the information troppo provided for us.
>>>> Numerous times.
>>>
>>> cool so you were wrong
>>
>> You've been told that a dozen times. Just as you were wrong in stating
>> that it was "secret", that JCU had a right to about it and that there
>> was a conflict of interest with JCU. Bullshitting on 3 counts by
>> dechucka - nothing unusual in that.
>
> When your wrong you just can't make up Bullshit ( trademarf Tony Abbott)

That's you boyo. You were wrong on *every* count. And that's now become
*your* trademark.

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another fine pickle you've got yourself in
>>>>>> Your conspiracy theory has been shot to shit. Turn down the
>>>>>> sensitivity of your tin foil hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> poor oy you are all in a tither re one of your favorites being
>>>>> caught in
>>>>> a cash for comment scandal
>>>>
>>>> Only under your tin hat. You've been had by a false alarm based in
>>>> warmist ignorance.
>>
>> <I did your work for you and trimmed my old sig. Learn not to be so
>> slovenly and you might have a vague chance of gaining some rudimentary
>> maths/science competence. No guarantees though. :-) >
>
> ?

<I didn't do your work for you this time, by trimming the old sig. Learn

not to be so slovenly and you might have a vague chance of gaining some
rudimentary maths/science competence. No guarantees though. :-) >

See how messy you leave things when you're bone lazy? :

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Classic, you say? How many cash for commenters would "comment" at an
after tax pay rate of probably $10/hr ota? If Carter worked at these
rates, he'd be better off a few extra hours at JCU and he'd be ahead. Or
5 hours of consulting work would do the trick. Classic? ROTFLMAO!

Carter does "cash for comment" at 10% of what he could get? You really
are full of desperation bullshit today.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 20/02/2012 3:34 PM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jhsg21$a5g$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 20/02/2012 12:28 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jhs55e$qqv$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 20/02/2012 8:09 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a mere 450 members of the Australian Academy of Science. If
>>>>>> you can assure the sponsor that your theory is correct you will have
>>>>>> no trouble funding a research assistant for the time needed to
>>>>>> conduct
>>>>>> a survey. Start here <http://heartland.org/>.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Meaning?
>>>
>>> I was was smiling at his comment obviously
>>
>> Glad you understood it.
>
> anyone with normal comprehension abilities could

WTF does he mean then?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I know that all too well, but he won't admit it. As laughable as him not
admitting that he's a rusted on Labor Pardy hack.

[Gordon Levi]

Rockinghorse Winner <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:

>* It may have been the liquor talking, but

>Regnad Kcin <nau...@again.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>>

>> All the world's science academies and scientific societies of

>> national or international standing *bar none* who believe that human

>> activity is contributing to global warming must be pissing themselves
>> laughing.
>>

>> _____________________________________________________
>>
>> Well that would be natural.
>> Incontinent in body,
>> incontinent of mind.
>> QED
>
>Hearsay, until you post the links to the full statements of said 'science
>academies and scientific societies.'

Here's some of them
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>.
The list is too long to post.

> Also, it's important in evaluating the
>science of a politically charged subject like AGW, to post the funding
>sources of said researchers.

It is fundamental to the climate conservatives view that governments
are behind the socialist goals of the IPCC and it would be surprising
if you did not share that view. Although I can't provide the funding
sources of the thousands of scientists involved you are probably right
and most of them are government funded either directly or via a
university.

>
>Also, scientific truth is not decided by a show of hands, but develops over
>time as various theories and leads are ferreted out and subject to further
>testing and refinement.

The theory behind AGW has been around for over eighty years
<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#SC>. Since Callendar the
evidence has become much stronger despite the hard work of climate
conservatives.

>
>Especially when making social and fiscal policy which affect the livelihoods
>of millions of human beings, you want to be sure that you don't inflict
>needless suffering on the basis of a 'popular theory' that is later, like so
>many are, found to be fallacious or incomplete.

No doubt you share the view of other climate conservatives and your
idea of "needless suffering" is a slightly reduced income.