Denialists Distraught Over Inability to Factually Deny Climate Change
Harry Hope
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php
12.29.09
by Sami Grover
http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Image credit: Skeptical Science - data from Doran (2009)
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
climate change
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-causing-global-warming.php
to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist Nick
Griffin,
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/holocaust-denier-represent-eu-climate-talks.php
the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
common meme from climate skeptics and denialists in recent weeks.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/skeptic-denier-denialist.php
But they're wrong.
Here's why.
Like all of the best half-truths, the fallacy that the overwhelming
consensus in climate science "means nothing" has its roots in a real
and important fact�namely that science is not a democracy, and
evidence really is what counts.
But what proponents of this idea miss is that this evidence is only
valid to those who have the scientific background to properly assess
that evidence in its appropriate context.
Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
purposes.
Where that argument falls flat on its face, however, is that this
ground-breaking study consistently fails to appear.
As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my
posts, evidence leads to consensus.
Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and
upset the status quo.
The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would
bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet
would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant
funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows
anything about the scientific establishment.
Yes, there are papers and articles floating about in the blogosphere
questioning this data set or that particular graph, but
time-and-time-again these papers are picked apart and discredited by
fellow scientists.
And if they are not, data sets are revised, research methods updated,
and guess what?
The consensus remains.
From amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach's accusations of data
misrepresentation at Darwin Airport,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
which have been debunked as outright lies by the folks at ScienceBlog,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
to skeptic campaigner Richard Treadgold's similar accusations of
manipulation in New Zealand,
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf which
was subsequently picked apart by the folks at HotTopicNZ,
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
"smoking guns" consistently and repeatedly turn out to be damp squibs.
And let's not forget the idea that sunspots somehow account for
climate variation, the evidence for which has been analyzed and
discounted by Foukal et al in Nature,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
and key proponents for which seem to have trouble making their code
available for analysis.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/
(To date, I have not heard a cry of outrage from the skeptic camp at
this refusal.)
The point is that each and every paper or article that comes out,
peer-reviewed or not, has been thoroughly discussed and picked apart
by scientists, clmatologists and lay-people alike.
And still, the scientific consensus remains solid.
Yes, there are people out there who choose to believe the scattering
of researchers who continue to dismiss AGW�and that is their
prerogative.
But given the fact that most of us know next to nothing about climate
science, it is impossible for us to discuss the meaning of any one
data set or other evidence in any meaningful way�let alone get a grasp
on how the evidence that has been collected around the globe all
points in the same direction.
In the end, all of us non-experts choose which side we believe.
And just as a jury member will take into account both the credibility
of each individual witness to a crime, and the consensus that forms
from differing accounts, so too we observers need to exercise a
healthy and rigorous analysis of what is being said, and by whom.
We rely on neuroscientists to discuss the controversies that
occasionally spring up in their field, likewise evolutionary
biologists.
So too it takes the disciplined and extended learning of a climate
scientist to understand climate science.
Sure, there are people out there who will tell you AGW is bogus, just
as there are people out there who will point to "research papers"
debunking the idea of evolution, or that HIV is linked to AIDS.
But for those claims to have any validity, they need to stand up not
just in discussion with amateur scientists, angry bloggers and vested
interests.
They need to undergo the rigors of peer reviewed science.
And to those folks who argue that "climate gate" somehow proved the
peer review process invalid, I ask you to show me how.
To date, as far as I am aware, the worst that has come to light were
some off-hand remarks that efforts would be made to keep two papers
out of the IPCC report (both of which made it into the report�so if
there was a conspiracy, it was an astoundingly unsuccessful one), and
that CRU climatologists believed their colleagues should boycott a
journal they considered to be practicing poor science.
The editors of that journal later resigned because of the breakdown of
the peer review process at that journal.
So by all means, send along your "proof" that man-made global warming
is a fallacy in the comments below.
But I'm a busy man, so entering into debate on each and every link
posted is unlikely to happen�if you have a particularly compelling
article or paper, it would be great if you can also post the
credentials of the researchers, the forums in which it has appeared
(peer reviewed or not), and why you think it has more credibility
than, say, the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#National_Research_Council_Report
NASA, http://climate.nasa.gov/ or Wood and Steig's assessment of the
CRU data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell me
why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
_________________________________________________
Harry
tunderbar
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-ske...
>
> 12.29.09
>
> by Sami Grover
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
>
> Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
> significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>
> From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
> to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist Nick
> the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
> which have been debunked as outright lies by the folks at ScienceBlog,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lyin...
> to skeptic campaigner Richard Treadgold's similar accusations of
> manipulation in New Zealand,http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdfwhich
> "smoking guns" consistently and repeatedly turn out to be damp squibs.
> And let's not forget the idea that sunspots somehow account for
> climate variation, the evidence for which has been analyzed and
> and key proponents for which seem to have trouble making their code
> NASA,http://climate.nasa.gov/or Wood and Steig's assessment of the
> CRU data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>
> In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
> thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
> all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
> man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell me
> why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Bwaaahaaahaaaaaaaaa
Sid9
"tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:109b8553-5118-42c2...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
.
Betcha don't like fluoridation of water, compulsory auto seat belts, and
mandatory vaccination among other things.....
You're just another member of the AOA!
Killing, Inc.
> "tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> CRU
> >> data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>
> >> In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
> >> thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
> >> all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
> >> man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell me
> >> why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
>
> >> _________________________________________________
>
> >> Harry
>
> > Bwaaahaaahaaaaaaaaa
>
> .
> .
> Betcha don't like fluoridation of water, compulsory auto seat belts, and
> mandatory vaccination among other things.....
Are those things also based on faked science to support the nefarious
political ends of a religious cult, hmm flat earther?
no ob
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:fqclj5d7d5kt868n3...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php
>
> 12.29.09
>
> by Sami Grover
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
>
> Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
> significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> Image credit: Skeptical Science - data from Doran (2009)
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>
>
> From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
> climate change
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-causing-global-warming.php
> to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist Nick
> Griffin,
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/holocaust-denier-represent-eu-climate-talks.php
> the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
> common meme from climate skeptics and denialists in recent weeks.
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/skeptic-denier-denialist.php
>
> But they're wrong.
>
> Here's why.
>
> Like all of the best half-truths, the fallacy that the overwhelming
> consensus in climate science "means nothing" has its roots in a real
> evidence really is what counts.
>
> But what proponents of this idea miss is that this evidence is only
> valid to those who have the scientific background to properly assess
> that evidence in its appropriate context.
>
> Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
> ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> purposes.
>
> Where that argument falls flat on its face, however, is that this
> ground-breaking study consistently fails to appear.
>
German Physicists Trash Global Warming "Theory"
Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
26 Dec 2009
QUOTE: Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
cannot exist. If it did it would be a "perpetual motion
machine" - the realm of pure sci-fi.
For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
complexities of atmospheric physics - the "hardest" science of
climatology.
Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Before going further, it's worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
ever completed any university course in climatology-that's how new
this branch of science really is.
Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is
the dreaded "appeal to authority" where the flustered debater, out of his or
her depth, will say, "Well, professor so-and-so says it's true - so it must
be true."
Don't fall for that proxy tree-ring counter's gambit any longer.
Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
and shows that the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying
CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
Modern Physics.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
"greenhouse" effect and should be called something else.
2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics.
Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work
applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a "perpetual motion
machine" - the realm of pure sci-fi.
Gerlich's and Tscheuschner's independent theoretical study is detailed
in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13
data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
references) paper.
The German physicists prove that even if CO2
concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit
is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change
more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass
greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth's climate.
They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a "closed" system while
the planet works as an "open" system and the term "atmospheric
greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work involving
thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.
All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas
theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to
"calculate" the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable
array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of
modern supercomputers.
The paper's introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse
effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface
temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33�C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the
atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves
that there exists a mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler
upper atmosphere exerts any thermal "forcing" effect on the warmer
surface below.
To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As
there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the
excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that
the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean,
the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory%22
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"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
Climate Realist
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-ske...
>
>
> by Sami Grover
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
>
> Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
> significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>
> From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
> to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist Nick
> the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
> which have been debunked as outright lies by the folks at ScienceBlog,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lyin...
> to skeptic campaigner Richard Treadgold's similar accusations of
> manipulation in New Zealand,http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdfwhich
> "smoking guns" consistently and repeatedly turn out to be damp squibs.
> And let's not forget the idea that sunspots somehow account for
> climate variation, the evidence for which has been analyzed and
> and key proponents for which seem to have trouble making their code
> NASA,http://climate.nasa.gov/or Wood and Steig's assessment of the
> CRU data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>
> In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
> thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
> all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
> man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell me
> why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Harry
I would like to comment on a number of the claims made in this post.
1) The claim that "evidence leads to consensus".
This is true in some circumstances. For example, the evidence for
gravity, and the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, are good
enough to lead to consensus. Note that skeptics/deniers do NOT dispute
these claims (even though Lloyd would like you to believe that they
did).
However, there are many other things that can lead to consensus.
Money can lead to consensus.
Power can lead to consensus.
Intimidation can lead to consensus.
Religion can lead to consensus.
Arrogance can lead to consensus.
Ignorance can lead to consensus.
Superstition can lead to consensus.
Etc.
There is a lot of evidence that many of these factors are behind the
false AGW consensus.
2) Is there really a consensus?
The consensus only exists in the minds of Alarmists. There are many
creditable sources arguing against AGW, and the only way that
Alarmists can maintain their closed minds is to label all skeptics as
"deniers", to justify not listening to any of their arguments. This,
of course, goes against all principles of science. Anybody can get an
invalid consensus, if they ignore everybody who disagrees with them.
You do not want to admit that there is any opposition to your
consensus, but by naming the opposition ("deniers"), you are actually
acknowledging that you do not have a consensus.
Claudius Denk
> Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
> ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> purposes.
>
> Where that argument falls flat on its face, however, is that this
> ground-breaking study consistently fails to appear.
>
> As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my
> posts, evidence leads to consensus.
Religious leaders say the same thing.
>
> Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and
> upset the status quo.
Unless they are the status quo.
>
> The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would
> bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet
> would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant
> funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows
> anything about the scientific establishment.
IMO, the idea that scientists are more interested in science than
their own enrichment is ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about
human beings.
Sid9
"Climate Realist" <climate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4816cc6-eec0-4518...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
.
There are many creditable sources arguing against AGW is total bullshit
conjured up by morons.
Bret Cahill
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-ske...
>
> 12.29.09
>
> by Sami Grover
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
>
> Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
> significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>
> From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
> to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist Nick
> the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
> which have been debunked as outright lies by the folks at ScienceBlog,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lyin...
> to skeptic campaigner Richard Treadgold's similar accusations of
> manipulation in New Zealand,http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdfwhich
> "smoking guns" consistently and repeatedly turn out to be damp squibs.
> And let's not forget the idea that sunspots somehow account for
> climate variation, the evidence for which has been analyzed and
> and key proponents for which seem to have trouble making their code
> NASA,http://climate.nasa.gov/or Wood and Steig's assessment of the
> CRU data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
SilentOtto
wrote:
> > CRU data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>
> > In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
> > thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
> > all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
> > man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell me
> > why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
>
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Harry
>
> I would like to comment on a number of the claims made in this post.
>
> 1) The claim that "evidence leads to consensus".
>
> This is true in some circumstances. For example, the evidence for
> gravity, and the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, are good
> enough to lead to consensus. Note that skeptics/deniers do NOT dispute
> these claims (even though Lloyd would like you to believe that they
> did).
Note that there is -no money- to be made in disputing those claims...
That's not so with disputing AGW.
> However, there are many other things that can lead to consensus.
>
> Money can lead to consensus.
> Power can lead to consensus.
> Intimidation can lead to consensus.
> Religion can lead to consensus.
> Arrogance can lead to consensus.
> Ignorance can lead to consensus.
> Superstition can lead to consensus.
> Etc.
Great.
Then all you need to do is show that any of those factors are at work
among the scientists who've formed a consensus around AGW.
Certainly nobody has had any difficulty in linking the deniers to one
or more of the above. (usually money and usually from the energy
industries)
How come there has been so much difficulty in linking the scientists
who've formed a consensus around AGW to your reasons for forming a
false consensus?
And, before you say "Al Gore"...
Al Gore isn't a scientist. He only reported on their findings.
> There is a lot of evidence that many of these factors are behind the
> false AGW consensus.
A lot?
Really?
How come you didn't list any of your evidence?
Which scientists who've done research that supports AGW have fallen
prey to which of your reasons for forming a false consensus?
Name names.
After all, if you claim there is "a lot of evidence", then you must
know what that evidence is.
>
> 2) Is there really a consensus?
>
> The consensus only exists in the minds of Alarmists. There are many
> creditable sources arguing against AGW, and the only way that
> Alarmists can maintain their closed minds is to label all skeptics as
> "deniers", to justify not listening to any of their arguments. This,
> of course, goes against all principles of science. Anybody can get an
> invalid consensus, if they ignore everybody who disagrees with them.
"Many creditable sources arguing against AGW"?
Again, name some.
Most of those who argue against AGW are operating outside of their
field of expertise or playing fast and loose with the numbers while
they accept large sums of money from corporations with a vested
interest in denying climate change.
The studies they publish either fail peer review or are ripped to
shreds by scientists who -are- operating within their field of
expertise.
The consensus surrounding AGW developed for a reason, and that reason
is because AGW is based sound science.
> You do not want to admit that there is any opposition to your
> consensus, but by naming the opposition ("deniers"), you are actually
> acknowledging that you do not have a consensus.
No...
Deniers are those who cling to their beliefs no matter how much
evidence there is to show them that their wrong.
For example, the evidence supporting the TOE is overwhelming.
Yet, there are those who deny the validity of the science due to one
or more of the reasons you listed above.
There -isn't- any scientific controversy surrounding the TOE and
hasn't been for between fifty and one-hundred years.
The controversy is -entirely- political.
It's much the same with AGW. Virtually all the controversy is
political in nature.
The reason for that is because there is very little valid science that
contests AGW.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Chaos out of Order
There is also the issue of determining if global warming is actually
occurring, let alone if it's caused by humanity. A lot of people are
assuming that Point A, that the world is getting warmer, is a resolved
issue and are now well onto Point B. Let's give the scientists more
time to resolve this issue. How much time? Well, since most of us
here aren't climatologists, I guess we'll have to let the real
scientists decide when the issue has been resolved.
I don't suggest this lightly. If the world is getting warmer and if
it is caused by humanity and if such an increase could prove
detrimental to life on this planet and if our time to stop this
increase, assuming all other ifs are true, is short, then waiting for
the climatologists could be a bad thing. On the other hand, to jump
to conclusions before the scientists have reached one could also be a
bad thing, too.
Fred Weiss
> > Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
> > ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> > or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> > purposes.
No one has to prove that man-made global warming is false. You still
don't get it.
Just as you don't understand the difference between causality and
correlation, you don't understand what "burden of proof" means.
It's the enviroHysterics and Hoaxers who have to prove that their view
is correct. Not only haven't they done so, they've admitted they
can't.
"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," - Kevin Trenberth (leading
enviroHysteric)
ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
Fred Weiss
Climate Realist
. On Dec 29, 11:29 pm, Climate Realist <climate.real...@gmail.com>
. wrote:
.
. > I would like to comment on a number of the claims made in this
post.
.
. > 1) The claim that "evidence leads to consensus".
.
. > This is true in some circumstances. For example, the evidence for
. > enough to lead to consensus. Note that skeptics/deniers do NOT
dispute
. > these claims (even though Lloyd would like you to believe that
they
. > did).
.
. Note that there is -no money- to be made in disputing those
claims...
That is NOT true. If somebody could produce evidence which over-turned
one of these established theories, then they would become instantly
famous, and could probably make a lot of money (film, books, public
speaking, etc).
. That's not so with disputing AGW.
.
. > However, there are many other things that can lead to consensus.
.
. > Money can lead to consensus.
. > Power can lead to consensus.
. > Intimidation can lead to consensus.
. > Religion can lead to consensus.
. > Arrogance can lead to consensus.
. > Ignorance can lead to consensus.
. > Superstition can lead to consensus.
. > Etc.
.
. Great.
.
. Then all you need to do is show that any of those factors are at
work
. among the scientists who've formed a consensus around AGW.
.
. Certainly nobody has had any difficulty in linking the deniers to
one
. or more of the above. (usually money and usually from the energy
. industries)
I must comment on this much loved lie, which is often used by
alarmists.
99% of the people that this lie is used against, have never received a
cent from "Big Oil". The other 1% receive paltry amounts, which are 10
to 1000 times SMALLER than the alarmists get in research grants.
This lie is used to dismiss any solid evidence against AGW, which
can't be attacked in some other way. It is especially useful when
alarmists have no scientific evidence to dispute the inconvenient
facts.
The allegation is easy to make (it doesn't need any evidence), and
almost impossible to refute. Can YOU provide evidence that YOU have
not received money from "Big Oil" or "Big AGW". Come on, we are
waiting to see this evidence. All of your bank account data, and all
personal details will be enough to start with. Where is it? Are you
hiding something? You must be in the pay of somebody then, so we can't
trust anything that you say.
Another point which alarmists seem to be too stupid to understand. If
you were "Big Oil", would you rather sell your limited amount of
product (peak oil etc) at competitive prices, or in a restricted
market where demand was 100 or 1000 times the supply. Do you really
think that Oil companies would make a loss if their sales were
restricted by AGW regulations. I imagine that the Oil companies would
love it, huge premiums on their product, and the rationing would make
their product last for decades longer than it would otherwise.
A final point on "Big Oil". I have seen in several places recently
that "Big Oil" gave funds to CRU, and GISS. Does that mean that CRU
and GISS are no longer trustworthy organisations? They have received
money from "Big Oil". This means that they must be evil, lying,
bastards. I hope that you are not going to be a hypocrite, and say
that it is all right for CRU and GISS to receive money from "Big Oil",
when you have damned everybody else for it (whether they got money or
not).
. How come there has been so much difficulty in linking the scientists
. who've formed a consensus around AGW to your reasons for forming a
. false consensus?
.
. And, before you say "Al Gore"...
.
. Al Gore isn't a scientist. He only reported on their findings.
Correction. He seems to make up lots of lies which even the alarmist
scientists refuse to take ownership of.
. > There is a lot of evidence that many of these factors are behind
the
. > false AGW consensus.
.
. A lot?
.
. Really?
.
. How come you didn't list any of your evidence?
.
. Which scientists who've done research that supports AGW have fallen
. prey to which of your reasons for forming a false consensus?
.
. Name names.
.
. After all, if you claim there is "a lot of evidence", then you must
. know what that evidence is.
Money is probably the biggest factor in corrupting the alarmist
scientists. Trillions of dollars of research money is an amount
frequently mentioned. This may be an exaggeration, but the amounts are
very large.
In the hacked CRU documents, there was a spreadsheet showing 13
million pounds that Phil Jones was looking after (this may not be all
that he was in charge of). I saw another article which talked about a
person having a research grant of 10 million dollars.
These are LARGE amounts of money. Skeptics do NOT get this sort of
money. This sort of money gives power, and buys compliance.
The CRU email hack showed the sort of tactics that these corrupt
pseudo-scientists are prepared to engage in. Black listing journals,
changing the rules of peer review to exclude authors that they don't
like, etc. How do YOU justify their actions to yourself, when you hear
what they have been up to (and I am sure that we have only seen the
tip of the iceberg). Do you see them as knights in shining armour, who
can do no wrong. Everything is justified in their quest for the holy
grail, tricking/convincing people that AGW is true.
I guess that makes YOU as bad as they are.
tg
You obviously have no idea about basic economics. What 'premiums' are
you talking about? Have you ever heard of supply and demand? You
think that if demand goes down the price goes up?
Get an economics 101 textbook and stop listening to talk radio.
-tg
*us*
<climate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I must ... lie, which is often used by
>alarmists.
You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
profit on destruction, aren't you.
You have no data.
*us*
wrote:
>...their own enrichment ...
That's why the polluters pay for the denial bullshit
and the denialists spew lies.
You have no data.
*us*
>... don't understand what "burden of proof" means.
If you could prove that human activity doesn't contribute
to global climate change, it'd mean something.
If you could prove that the planet is cooling, not warming,
it'd mean something.
If you could prove that warming of the earth's ecosystems
would be beneficial, not harmful, to human and other life,
it'd mean something.
What a shame you can't prove any of those things.
>...Hysterics and Hoaxers ...
You're afraid you might be inconvenienced as you seek
to destroy the quality of life for others, aren't you.
Ouroboros Rex
Nope, none.
>
>
> 2) Is there really a consensus?
>
> The consensus only exists in the minds of Alarmists. There are many
> creditable sources arguing against AGW,
Stupid lie.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Dec 30, 12:48 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>> Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
>>> ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is
>>> false, or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for
>>> fiendish purposes.
>
> No one has to prove that man-made global warming is false. You still
> don't get it.
>
> Just as you don't understand the difference between causality and
> correlation, you don't understand what "burden of proof" means.
>
> It's the enviroHysterics and Hoaxers who have to prove that their view
> is correct. Not only haven't they done so, they've admitted they
> can't.
Lie.
>
> "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," - Kevin Trenberth (leading
> enviroHysteric)
>
> ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth.
>
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
More lies.
Ouroboros Rex
You don't have any solid evidence against AGW. None.
Ouroboros Rex
That issue has been resolved for decades.
Bret Cahill
> > > ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> > > or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> > > purposes.
>
> No one has to prove that man-made global warming is false.
No one had to prove Saddam had WMD to take action either.
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Shrikeback
No. It doesn't work that way. First, you make your
predictions based on your models. Then you observe.
Get back to us in 2100.
Shrikeback
There is no action to be taken. Nothing can
be done. It's hopeless. China, India, and the
rest of the developing world is not going to cut
their growth for the sake of some greenola
hypotheticals. It isn't going to happen, so
move out to the Unabomber's cabin and hunker
down, if you're really skeered.
Claudius Denk
> There is also the issue of determining if global warming is actually
> occurring, let alone if it's caused by humanity. A lot of people are
> assuming that Point A, that the world is getting warmer, is a resolved
> issue and are now well onto Point B. Let's give the scientists more
> time to resolve this issue.
How about if we fire them all so they can go out and make a real
contribution to society in some other occupation.
We don't need climatologists. The only thing they are going to do is
ask for more money in one way or another.
Bret Cahill
> > > > > ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> > > > > or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> > > > > purposes.
>
> > > No one has to prove that man-made global warming is false.
>
> > No one had to prove Saddam had WMD to take action either.
>
> There is no action to be taken.
Under the Bush Doctrine any perceived threat to the U. S. means we
have the right to take action to start bombing countries.
AGW is a much bigger threat than Islamist terrorists therefore, a
fortiori, we have the right to start bombing countries that threaten
us with CO2.
Now there is one difference. BushCo was hypocritical about the WMD.
Democrats aren't as hypocritical as Repugliar "market" economists we
need to first take action to reduce our own CO2 emissions.
Bret Cahill
*us*
wrote:
>How about if we ...
How about if you produce some data.
*us*
wrote:
>No. It doesn't work that way. First, you make your
>predictions based on your models. Then you observe.
>Get back to us in 2100.
Where are your predictions based on your models?
Where are your observations?
"a summary of the scientific case for modern anthropogenic global warming"
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
Michael Gordge
> If you could prove that human activity doesn't contribute
> to global climate change, it'd mean something.
Hey dopey, its not possible to prove a negative and its irrational to
demand it, get back when ewe have the proof that man can make the
globe hot and cold by fucking around with Co2.
MG
Sid9
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:fd6500a1-5a0b-4dad...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
My guess is that you opposed fluoridation of water, mandatory vaccinations,
mandatory use of auto seat belts, too.
Michael Gordge
> My guess is that you opposed fluoridation of water, mandatory vaccinations,
> mandatory use of auto seat belts, too.
Why do ewe need to be forced to drink fluoride, vaccinate your
children and wear seatbelts?
Note - Ewe can only speak for ewe.
MG
Last Post
> > > > > > Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
> > > > > > ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is false,
> > > > > > or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> > > > > > purposes.
>
> > > > No one has to prove that man-made global warming is false.
>
No one has provided proof global
warming exists or ever did exist.
• The dinosaurs lived through 30 or 40 ice ages
leaving only alligators and crocodiles as their
only descendants.
In the past 5 million years there have been 50
ice ages each 100 thousand years long each
ending with an interglacial period of 10 to 12
thousand years. Thirteen thousand years have
passed since the end of the last Ice age. You
just might think we are due.
• The best we can do is batten the hatches and
prepare for the worse
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
I M @ good guy
When do the hots cops start issuing citations?
Climate Realist
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:32:18 -0800 (PST), Climate Denier Buffoon
>
> >I must ... lie, which is often used by
> >alarmists.
>
> You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
> profit on destruction, aren't you.
>
> You have no data.
.> You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
.> profit on destruction, aren't you.
Please think about WHO the polluters really are.
Do YOU drive a car or SUV?
Do YOU buy food from a supermarket? (which was transported there using
oil)
Do YOU use oil for heating? (or do you use electricity from coal fired
power stations)
Do YOU have multiple TVs in your house, or a wide screen TV?
Do YOU have a dish-washer?
Is somebody holding a gun to YOUR head, forcing YOU to have the things
mentioned above?
So who is it, that is actually doing the polluting?
YOU?
Or is the oil company making YOU do it? :)
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 31, 2:53 am, * US * wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:32:18 -0800 (PST),
>
> > >I must ... lie, which is often used by
> > >alarmists.
>
> > You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
> > profit on destruction, aren't you.
>
> > You have no data.
>
> .> You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
> .> profit on destruction, aren't you.
>
> Please think about WHO the polluters really are.
>
> Do YOU drive a car or SUV?
>
> Do YOU buy food from a supermarket? (which was transported there using
> oil)
>
> Do YOU use oil for heating? (or do you use electricity from coal fired
> power stations)
>
> Do YOU have multiple TVs in your house, or a wide screen TV?
>
> Do YOU have a dish-washer?
>
> Is somebody holding a gun to YOUR head, forcing YOU to have the things
> mentioned above?
>
> So who is it, that is actually doing the polluting?
>
> YOU?
>
> Or is the oil company making YOU do it? :)
• You have a major problem besides your spam posts,
CO2 is not a polluter. No one can live without it.
*us*
>... dopey...
That must be why you can't understand the data
showing that human activities affect climate.
You certainly have no data to show otherwise.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:47 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>... don't understand what "burden of proof" means.
If you could prove that human activity doesn't contribute
to global climate change, it'd mean something.
If you could prove that the planet is cooling, not warming,
*us*
<climate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I must ... lie, which is often used by
>alarmists.
You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
profit on destruction, aren't you.
You have no data.
You have only fallacies and lies.
*us*
The denier doesn't even know what the question is, yet.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:20:47 -0800 (PST), "leonard pulver the pulverized"
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... have a major problem ...
You have several, including that you're ignorant and a liar.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:32:18 -0800 (PST), Climate Denier Buffoon
<climate...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I must ... lie, which is often used by
>alarmists.
You're alarmed that polluters won't make as much
profit on destruction, aren't you.
You have no data.
You have only fallacies and lies.
*us*
> When do ...
When do you get your first clue about the fact
that we will need to develop alternate energy
sources and limit pollution asap?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:37:40 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>... dopey...
That must be why you can't understand the data
showing that human activities affect climate.
You certainly have no data to show otherwise.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:47 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
SilentOtto
> On Dec 30, 6:16 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> . > I would like to comment on a number of the claims made in this
> post.
> .
> . > 1) The claim that "evidence leads to consensus".
> .
> . > This is true in some circumstances. For example, the evidence for
> . > enough to lead to consensus. Note that skeptics/deniers do NOT
> dispute
> . > these claims (even though Lloyd would like you to believe that
> they
> . > did).
> .
> . Note that there is -no money- to be made in disputing those
> claims...
>
> That is NOT true. If somebody could produce evidence which over-turned
> one of these established theories, then they would become instantly
> famous, and could probably make a lot of money (film, books, public
> speaking, etc).
Except, they -can't- overturn those theories.
The science is too strong.
Nobody will pay them to simply contest them, as energy companies will
with AGW.
> . That's not so with disputing AGW.
> .
> . > However, there are many other things that can lead to consensus.
> .
> . > Money can lead to consensus.
> . > Power can lead to consensus.
> . > Intimidation can lead to consensus.
> . > Religion can lead to consensus.
> . > Arrogance can lead to consensus.
> . > Ignorance can lead to consensus.
> . > Superstition can lead to consensus.
> . > Etc.
> .
> . Great.
> .
> . Then all you need to do is show that any of those factors are at
> work
> . among the scientists who've formed a consensus around AGW.
> .
> . Certainly nobody has had any difficulty in linking the deniers to
> one
> . or more of the above. (usually money and usually from the energy
> . industries)
>
> I must comment on this much loved lie, which is often used by
> alarmists.
First, I notice you still haven't linked AGW supporters to any of your
above reasons for forming a false consensus.
Second, I cited what I did for good reason.
The following examples list the organization who provided funding, the
amount they paid and the "research" they received for their money.
American Enterprise Institute
$1,860,000
Offered $10k to scientists to write a paper on the UN IPCC "...that
thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting]
outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
Project was apparently canceled. (Letter, 2/5/07)
"If you look closely at the IPCC's full reports, they are hedged
repeatedly in uncertainties and limitations about what we know."
Hayward, (FrontPage, AEI, 5/21/07)
American Legislative Exchange Council
$1,126,200
"The science of climate change is unsettled" and the "question is how
much, if any, of this warming is caused by human activities." (ALEC
Analysis, Fall 2006)
Cato Institute
$125,000
" Using normal scientific standards, there is no proof we are causing
the Earth to warm, let alone that such warming will cause an
environmental catastrophe." (publication, 7/11/07)
Citizens for a Sound Economy Educational Foundation [2004 in
FreedomWorks]
$380,250
"Don't allow our corporations to be used as pawns for a radical agenda
which is not based on science...Human impact on global warming is
likely negligible at best!" (Stop the Extremists on Global Warming: An
open letter to ExxonMobil Shareholders, 5/26/03)
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
$567,000
"Despite the endless deluge of global warming claims there is also a
mountain of climate data to dispute them." (website, 2/20/07)
Fraser Institute
$120,000
All for climate projects
"Climate change activists are exaggerating the certainty in the
linkage between human action and climate change and advocating
policies that offer no environmental gain, but a lot of economic
pain." (Press Release, 7/21/03)
Free Enterprise Action Institute/ CSR Watch
$130,000
"...the junk science behind global warming hysteria,... subscribing to
the unproven notion that humans are altering global climate for the
worse..." (Top 10 Worst in 2004, 12/7/05)
Frontiers of Freedom Institute
$1,182,000
" there is a wide spectrum of opinion on almost every aspect of the
subject..." (Rebuttal to Al Gore's Congressional testimony, May 2007)
"Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic
climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events." (Science Hill
Watch, 2/2/04)
George C. Marshall Institute
$745,000
"We have at least 25 years to research this issue before CO2 emission
cuts need to be considered." (A guide to global warming, accessed
10/07)
Heartland Institute
$830,000
"The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure
fiction." (Joseph Bast, president, 6/28/07 Press release) "... warming
is likely to be very modest relative to natural variation," (2007
Guidebook for State Legislators)
Heritage Foundation
$565,000
" Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding global warming is
speculative and lies outside the scientific consensus.... given that
global warming is not unprecedented, is not catastrophic, we really
need to think seriously about the costs of some of these efforts to
deal with global warming...." (Cold Facts on Global Warming, accessed
8/07)
Media Research Center
$202,500
Dedicated to revealing liberal bias media. "ABC, CBS, and NBC are
giving overwhelmingly one-sided coverage to the global warming issue
with numerous reports that largely mimic the talking points of former
Vice President Al Gore and climate disaster alarmists..." (Press
Release, 4/19/07)
National Center for Policy Analysis
$545,900
"Due to the complexities of the climate system, we currently cannot
reliably connect emissions of greenhouse gases from any specific
source or group of sources to an increased risk of any particular
outcome..." (NCPA publication, 5/15/06)
National Center for Public Policy Research/ EnviroTruth
$335,000
"the science implicating human activity on global warming is uncertain
and speculative" (testimony of Sr. Fellow Thomas J. Borelli, 6/29/07)
"There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking
place." (NCPPR website, 4/04)
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
$430,000
This example misinforms readers by confusing weather with climate:
"Warming theorists warn that there is more to come, but as farmers
know, the weather does not always cooperate with
predictions." (Capital Ideas, 8/15/07)
The Advancement of Sound Science Center and Junkscience.com
$50,000
"Global warming alarmists, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC),..."
Milloy replays hackneyed arguments that attempt to disprove the IPCC
conclusions of the state of science.
>
> 99% of the people that this lie is used against, have never received a
> cent from "Big Oil". The other 1% receive paltry amounts, which are 10
> to 1000 times SMALLER than the alarmists get in research grants.
Evidence suggests your 99% figure is bogus.
Further, it's not like scientists who get research grants get to
pocket the money.
They spend it on...
Wait for it...
Research.
That's not so with those who are funded by the energy companies. That
money goes straight into their pockets to spend how they see fit.
> This lie is used to dismiss any solid evidence against AGW, which
> can't be attacked in some other way. It is especially useful when
> alarmists have no scientific evidence to dispute the inconvenient
> facts.
Were denialists actually providing inconvenient -facts-, it wouldn't
be an issue.
But, they're not.
There isn't any solid evidence against AGW, which is why the theory
enjoys a broad, cross disciplinary scientific consensus and why the
attacks on AGW are either based on bad science or are political in
nature.
> The allegation is easy to make (it doesn't need any evidence), and
> almost impossible to refute. Can YOU provide evidence that YOU have
> not received money from "Big Oil" or "Big AGW". Come on, we are
> waiting to see this evidence. All of your bank account data, and all
> personal details will be enough to start with. Where is it? Are you
> hiding something? You must be in the pay of somebody then, so we can't
> trust anything that you say.
>
> Another point which alarmists seem to be too stupid to understand. If
> you were "Big Oil", would you rather sell your limited amount of
> product (peak oil etc) at competitive prices, or in a restricted
> market where demand was 100 or 1000 times the supply. Do you really
> think that Oil companies would make a loss if their sales were
> restricted by AGW regulations. I imagine that the Oil companies would
> love it, huge premiums on their product, and the rationing would make
> their product last for decades longer than it would otherwise.
Heh heh...
Good one.
And, those who created the real estate bubble could have milked the
system for decades had they showed some restraint.
But, they didn't.
They wanted the cash -now- and they went for it.
Corporations are concerned with their bottom line in five years, not a
generation down the road when the current CEO is already retired.
It's not a myth that corporations are driven by short term goals, and
has long been a criticism of U.S. style corporate capitalism.
> A final point on "Big Oil". I have seen in several places recently
> that "Big Oil" gave funds to CRU, and GISS. Does that mean that CRU
> and GISS are no longer trustworthy organisations? They have received
> money from "Big Oil". This means that they must be evil, lying,
> bastards. I hope that you are not going to be a hypocrite, and say
> that it is all right for CRU and GISS to receive money from "Big Oil",
> when you have damned everybody else for it (whether they got money or
> not).
When big oil needs valid research for their own internal planning,
they turn to reputable organizations to get the data they require.
It's no shock that they would be playing both sides of the fence.
If you want to know the feasibility of offshore drilling in the arctic
in the future, you fund valid research.
If you want to avoid expensive political constraints on your product,
you fund deniers.
The two goals aren't mutually exclusive, their complimentary.
One is for in-house planning an the other is for fending off
legislation they don't like.
Different spheres of corporate interests require different tactics.
> . How come there has been so much difficulty in linking the scientists
> . who've formed a consensus around AGW to your reasons for forming a
> . false consensus?
> .
> . And, before you say "Al Gore"...
> .
> . Al Gore isn't a scientist. He only reported on their findings.
>
> Correction. He seems to make up lots of lies which even the alarmist
> scientists refuse to take ownership of.
You still failed to link scientists to your reasons for forming a
false consensus.
How come?
And, like I said...
Al Gore isn't a scientist.
> . > There is a lot of evidence that many of these factors are behind
> the
> . > false AGW consensus.
> .
> . A lot?
> .
> . Really?
> .
> . How come you didn't list any of your evidence?
> .
> . Which scientists who've done research that supports AGW have fallen
> . prey to which of your reasons for forming a false consensus?
> .
> . Name names.
> .
> . After all, if you claim there is "a lot of evidence", then you must
> . know what that evidence is.
>
> Money is probably the biggest factor in corrupting the alarmist
> scientists. Trillions of dollars of research money is an amount
> frequently mentioned. This may be an exaggeration, but the amounts are
> very large.
You -still- haven't named any names.
Why is that?
>
> In the hacked CRU documents, there was a spreadsheet showing 13
> million pounds that Phil Jones was looking after (this may not be all
> that he was in charge of). I saw another article which talked about a
> person having a research grant of 10 million dollars.
In "charge of"...
Not "putting in his pocket"...
Jones is the director of the CRU.
He has a research budget.
What a shock!
Now, lets see evidence of -personal enrichment-.
> These are LARGE amounts of money. Skeptics do NOT get this sort of
> money. This sort of money gives power, and buys compliance.
The money skeptics get goes straight into their pockets as personal
income.
Jones can't go out and buy a big house with the money he's in charge
of.
Climate deniers can with the money they receive from corporations.
I'd rather have a thousand dollars I can spend on myself than a
million that I can't.
> The CRU email hack showed the sort of tactics that these corrupt
> pseudo-scientists are prepared to engage in. Black listing journals,
> changing the rules of peer review to exclude authors that they don't
> like, etc. How do YOU justify their actions to yourself, when you hear
> what they have been up to (and I am sure that we have only seen the
> tip of the iceberg).
I don't have to justify it because what you described above -NEVER
HAPPENED-.
> Do you see them as knights in shining armour, who
> can do no wrong. Everything is justified in their quest for the holy
> grail, tricking/convincing people that AGW is true.
When an peer reviewed journal starts publishing -bad science- it's
perfectly valid for scientists question whether or not the said
journal should continue as an outlet for valid research.
In the incident referenced in the emails that you're referring to, a
substantial number of scientists on the review board of the journal
resigned in protest because such a scientifically unsound paper was
allowed to be published in the first place.
They no longer wished to be associated with a journal that had such
low standards for the quality of the science in the papers they were
publishing.
And, some of those scientists went on to write a scathing rebuttal of
the paper in question, pointing out the numerous errors in methodology
that the paper contained to support their case that it never should
have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with.
That -isn't- a conspiracy.
It's the scientific community self-policing to make sure that only
sound research gets through the peer review process.
Other studies that have raised questions about aspects of AGW theory
have been published without provoking such a response.
The difference is that they contained valid research methodology,
where the paper in question -didn't-.
>
> I guess that makes YOU as bad as they are.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate deniers.
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Sid9
"Climate Realist" <climate...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0cf7e8cc-30c9-4ea9...@n16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
.
All these things can be done without oil.
It has been written that alternative non-fossil energy source will
competitive when gasoline is $4 a gal or more.
Add $2/gal tax and you have created both the incentive and the funding for
switching energy sources without reducing our standard of living.
OPEC and its supporters will fight tooth and nail to prevent the cost of
gasoline from rising..... should the price rise their reserves become very
much reduced in value
I M @ good guy
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snipped silent denial]
>Heh heh...
>
>Rightard climate deniers.
Who denies climate, they should cut off funding
until you can express rational claims.
You mentioned a lot of funding, but not to
individuals, all AGW nuts may bizarre claims about
skeptics being paid, but never say who the skeptic is.
It is no longer warming, and will not be warming
until it gets warmer than 1998.
Until a year warmer than 1998 comes along,
AGW is a fad gone bad, doom and gloom canceled,
alarmism shown to be insane hysteria.
The most prudent thing to do is switch all
climate research money and people to jobs
designing and building alternate energy
devices to reduce the energy shortage and
high costs due to market speculation.
Sid9
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:dp9oj5ltbgs37fq0i...@4ax.com...
It may already be too late to reverse the condition.
We may only be able to moderate the damage.
I M @ good guy
Add $2 a gallon tax and see congress face
recall elections in every state.
Gasoline prices are high enough now to
start building a dozen 500,000 barrel a day
combination CTL and GTL plants to make
enough diesel and gasoline to eliminate
imports.
>OPEC and its supporters will fight tooth and nail to prevent the cost of
>gasoline from rising..... should the price rise their reserves become very
>much reduced in value
All they can do is try to reduce the price,
but current demand in Asia may make that
difficult.
They issue really is that there is no
government leadership in switching to
alternate energy, tax rebates exclude
the little guy, and the better off may
not worry about a $350 a month heating
bill and a car getting 18 MPG.
I M @ good guy
>It may already be too late to reverse the condition.
What condition, how did you know I
will be freezing my toes off for weeks.
>We may only be able to moderate the damage.
Hopefully there will not be a world wide
economic collapse, money is simply not
circulating, something different needs
to be tried, the weather or climate seems
minor when people are wondering where
they will sleep and what they will eat.
I have never seen any group be able
to prepare for any disaster, the disasters
always happen where and when you least
expect them.
dipsy
The Innuit in the Arctic are seeing animals migrate up north that they
have never seen before. They have to come up with names for chickadee,
robin and bumblebee. They know a red fox because they have only seen
white ones up there. The also had to have a name for a phenomenon they
have never experienced before...sunburn. Also in northern Baffin
Island, they had to have lightening explained for them. They hunt with
satellite phones for seals because they can't predict the seasonal ice
anymore and they can sometimes get sliced off on a chunk of ice and
head out to sea. They have never seen the multi-layered ice so far
away that they can't see it. One hunter, after falling through the ice
on his snowmobile, was asked if he knew why it had warmed up so much.
He replied, "The wind". So there you have it, there's no global
warming, just warm winds that inevitably took this man's "sled" away.
He said the world will end probably but he said its probably supposed
to anyways. So who gives, eh? Its happening regardless of the why and
wherefore and we can do nothing. If you want to have clean air then
thats your choice, but if the weather gets warmer, so does the stink
in the city. And when someone asks you why its so smoggy and stinky in
the city, you can say because its a city and it supposed to end
anyways. I do my part, you can if you want, or not, so who cares who
crashed the bus, and if you don't want to take care of the injured,
you can say, they'll probably die anyways. So we all die one day, so
what's the worry? Yeah, what a great philosophy that is. Gee that wind
is warm....
Michael Gordge
> That must be why you can't understand the data
> showing that human activities affect climate.
Ewe can understand a hoax? I bet ewe go to church too.
MG
Michael Gordge
> When do you get your first clue about the fact
> that we will need to develop alternate energy
> sources and limit pollution asap?
But of course ewe are real happy that the energy consumed and the
pollution required for your existence has happened as it happened when
it happened and now that ewe exist ewe claim a bogus mission to now
make existence as miserable and as difficult as ewe can for any life
to come after ewe. Fuck ewe commie cunts are the most ignoant arrogant
and dangerous scum on earth, bar none.
MG
Michael Gordge
> If you could prove that human activity doesn't contribute
> to global climate change, it'd mean something.
Hey dopey, its not possible to prove a negative, just as ewe can not
prove that sun spots are not controlling earth's climate.
> If you could prove that the planet is cooling, not warming,
> it'd mean something.
ffs as if a wanker like ewe knows the first thing about proof when it
comes to a climate that has been changing for 4 and a half billion
years.
> If you could prove that warming of the earth's ecosystems
> would be beneficial, not harmful, to human and other life,
> it'd mean something.
Fucking idiot, the earth has been a lot warmer and a lot colder and
all kinds of life has both survied and perished, so fucking what?
MG
Not Sure
> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 8:29 pm, Climate Realist <climate.real...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 1:58 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-ske...
>
> >>> 12.29.09
>
> >>> by Sami Grover
>
> >>>http://www.treehugger.com/consensus-climate-change.jpg
>
> >>> Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a
> >>> significant contributing factor in changing mean global
> >>> temperatures?"
> >>> Image credit: Skeptical Science - data from Doran
> >>> (2009)http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>
> >>> From Brian's post on a huge survey showing scientific consensus on
> >>> climate
> >>> changehttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-...
> >>> to my post about holocaust denier and climate conspiracy theorist
> >>> Nick
> >>> Griffin,http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/holocaust-denier-represent-eu...
> >>> the refrain that scientific consensus is irrelevant has become a
> >>> common meme from climate skeptics and denialists in recent
> >>> weeks.http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/skeptic-denier-denialist.php
>
> >>> But they're wrong.
>
> >>> Here's why.
>
> >>> Like all of the best half-truths, the fallacy that the overwhelming
> >>> consensus in climate science "means nothing" has its roots in a real
> >>> and important fact namely that science is not a democracy, and
> >>> evidence really is what counts.
>
> >>> But what proponents of this idea miss is that this evidence is only
> >>> valid to those who have the scientific background to properly assess
> >>> that evidence in its appropriate context.
>
> >>> Skeptics and denialists are right to argue that all it takes is one
> >>> ground-breaking study to prove that man-made global warming is
> >>> false,
> >>> or even that it is all a 'hoax' that has been made up for fiendish
> >>> purposes.
>
> >>> ground-breaking study consistently fails to appear.
>
> >>> As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my
> >>> posts, evidence leads to consensus.
>
> >>> Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories
> >>> and
> >>> upset the status quo.
>
> >>> The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that
> >>> would
> >>> bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet
> >>> would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant
> >>> funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who
> >>> knows
> >>> anything about the scientific establishment.
>
> >>> Yes, there are papers and articles floating about in the blogosphere
> >>> questioning this data set or that particular graph, but
> >>> time-and-time-again these papers are picked apart and discredited by
> >>> fellow scientists.
>
> >>> And if they are not, data sets are revised, research methods
> >>> updated,
> >>> and guess what?
>
> >>> The consensus remains.
>
> >>> From amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach's accusations of data
> >>> misrepresentation at Darwin
> >>> Airport,http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
> >>> which have been debunked as outright lies by the folks at
> >>> ScienceBlog,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lyin...
> >>> to skeptic campaigner Richard Treadgold's similar accusations of
> >>> manipulation in New
> >>> Zealand,http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdfwhich
> >>> was subsequently picked apart by the folks at
> >>> HotTopicNZ,http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smea...
> >>> "smoking guns" consistently and repeatedly turn out to be damp
> >>> squibs.
> >>> And let's not forget the idea that sunspots somehow account for
> >>> climate variation, the evidence for which has been analyzed and
> >>> discounted by Foukal et al in
> >>> Nature,http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
> >>> and key proponents for which seem to have trouble making their code
> >>> available for
> >>> analysis.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-...
>
> >>> (To date, I have not heard a cry of outrage from the skeptic camp at
> >>> this refusal.)
>
> >>> The point is that each and every paper or article that comes out,
> >>> peer-reviewed or not, has been thoroughly discussed and picked apart
> >>> by scientists, clmatologists and lay-people alike.
>
> >>> And still, the scientific consensus remains solid.
>
> >>> Yes, there are people out there who choose to believe the scattering
> >>> of researchers who continue to dismiss AGW and that is their
> >>> prerogative.
>
> >>> But given the fact that most of us know next to nothing about
> >>> climate
> >>> science, it is impossible for us to discuss the meaning of any one
> >>> data set or other evidence in any meaningful way let alone get a
> >>> grasp
> >>> on how the evidence that has been collected around the globe all
> >>> points in the same direction.
>
> >>> In the end, all of us non-experts choose which side we believe.
>
> >>> And just as a jury member will take into account both the
> >>> credibility
> >>> of each individual witness to a crime, and the consensus that forms
> >>> from differing accounts, so too we observers need to exercise a
> >>> healthy and rigorous analysis of what is being said, and by whom.
>
> >>> We rely on neuroscientists to discuss the controversies that
> >>> occasionally spring up in their field, likewise evolutionary
> >>> biologists.
>
> >>> So too it takes the disciplined and extended learning of a climate
> >>> scientist to understand climate science.
>
> >>> Sure, there are people out there who will tell you AGW is bogus,
> >>> just
> >>> as there are people out there who will point to "research papers"
> >>> debunking the idea of evolution, or that HIV is linked to AIDS.
>
> >>> But for those claims to have any validity, they need to stand up not
> >>> just in discussion with amateur scientists, angry bloggers and
> >>> vested
> >>> interests.
>
> >>> They need to undergo the rigors of peer reviewed science.
>
> >>> And to those folks who argue that "climate gate" somehow proved the
> >>> peer review process invalid, I ask you to show me how.
>
> >>> To date, as far as I am aware, the worst that has come to light were
> >>> some off-hand remarks that efforts would be made to keep two papers
> >>> out of the IPCC report (both of which made it into the report so if
> >>> there was a conspiracy, it was an astoundingly unsuccessful one),
> >>> and
> >>> that CRU climatologists believed their colleagues should boycott a
> >>> journal they considered to be practicing poor science.
>
> >>> The editors of that journal later resigned because of the breakdown
> >>> of
> >>> the peer review process at that journal.
>
> >>> So by all means, send along your "proof" that man-made global
> >>> warming
> >>> is a fallacy in the comments below.
>
> >>> But I'm a busy man, so entering into debate on each and every link
> >>> posted is unlikely to happen if you have a particularly compelling
> >>> article or paper, it would be great if you can also post the
> >>> credentials of the researchers, the forums in which it has appeared
> >>> (peer reviewed or not), and why you think it has more credibility
> >>> than, say, the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric
> >>> Sciences and
> >>> Climate,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#National_Resear...
> >>> NASA,http://climate.nasa.gov/orWoodand Steig's assessment of the
> >>> CRU
> >>> data.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-dat...
>
> >>> In the meantime, please don't tell me that it means nothing that
> >>> thousands upon thousands of educated experts around the world, from
> >>> all political persuasions and backgrounds, continue to believe
> >>> man-made climate change is a major issue, unless you can also tell
> >>> me
> >>> why you are better qualified to tell me what's really happening.
>
> >>> _________________________________________________
>
> >>> Harry
>
> >> I would like to comment on a number of the claims made in this post.
>
>
> >> that they did).
>
> >> However, there are many other things that can lead to consensus.
>
>
> >> There is a lot of evidence that many of these factors are behind the
>
> >> 2) Is there really a consensus?
>
> >> The consensus only exists in the minds of Alarmists. There are many
> >> creditable sources arguing against AGW, and the only way that
> >> Alarmists can maintain their closed minds is to label all skeptics as
> >> "deniers", to justify not listening to any of their arguments. This,
> >> of course, goes against all principles of science. Anybody can get an
> >> invalid consensus, if they ignore everybody who disagrees with them.
>
> >> You do not want to admit that there is any opposition to your
> >> consensus, but by naming the opposition ("deniers"), you are actually
> >> acknowledging that you do not have a consensus.
>
> > There is also the issue of determining if global warming is actually
> > occurring, let alone if it's caused by humanity. A lot of people are
> > assuming that Point A, that the world is getting warmer, is a resolved
> > issue and are now well onto Point B. Let's give the scientists more
> > here aren't climatologists, I guess we'll have to let the real
> > scientists decide when the issue has been resolved.
>
> That issue has been resolved for decades.
Not according to those pesky emails :)
Sid9
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
.
.
December 24, 2009
Chilly Climate for Oil Refiners
By JAD MOUAWAD
Only a few years ago, a cry went up that the United States needed more oil
refineries. The perceived shortage was so acute that George W. Bush,
president at the time, even offered disused military bases as sites for
building them.
Not only did that never come to pass, but the reverse is now happening. The
business of oil refining is mired in a deep crisis, with five refineries
having shut down this year, including plants in Delaware, New Jersey,
California and New Mexico.
Gasoline demand, which many analysts had long expected to keep rising for
decades, is down sharply in the recession. And refiners are increasingly
convinced that even after the economy recovers, demand will not grow much in
coming years because of the rise of alternative fuel supplies and the advent
of tougher efficiency standards for automobiles.
The recent closings signal the end of a period from roughly 2004 to 2008,
when demand soared, refineries operated near capacity and profits swelled.
For drivers, that meant gasoline prices at $3 or $4 a gallon, especially
when hurricanes knocked out refining capacity on the Gulf Coast. For
refiners, this gilded period turned out to have been an anomaly.
Plagued by boom-and-bust cycles of rapid expansion followed by sharp
belt-tightening, refining companies have often struggled to operate at a
profit. That is a contrast to the production side of the oil business, long
a road to riches.
"Oil production creates wealth, but oil refining has often destroyed it,"
said Costanza Jacazio, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York.
Even so, these are unusually harsh times for oil refiners. The recent drop
in gasoline demand could result in more refineries being closed in the
coming year.
"We have too much capacity," said Lynn D. Westfall, the chief economist at
the Tesoro Corporation, a midsize refiner, who estimated that the industry's
capacity of 18 million barrels a day must be cut 5 to 8 percent. "We need
refineries to be shut down."
Refineries, especially smaller ones, have been closing for many years. The
number of refineries in the United States fell to about 150 in recent years
from more than 300 in 1982. At the same time, the nation's refining capacity
grew by about 13 percent, as companies expanded their most efficient
refineries.
But the shutdowns are now coming so fast that the United States is losing
capacity as refiners struggle to match their output to falling demand. Some
energy experts have said that gasoline consumption most likely peaked in
2007, when it reached 9.7 million barrels a day, and will not rise to that
level again.
Even as demand has dropped, gasoline is still relatively expensive because
of high oil prices. Gasoline prices have dropped to an average of $2.58 a
gallon, according to the motorist group AAA, with many analysts predicting
further declines this winter.
Gasoline consumption fell 3.5 percent last year, the steepest decline since
1965, while diesel consumption fell 6.8 percent, the most in 28 years. Both
are set to fall again this year.
Government mandates for ethanol, meanwhile, are expected to grow through
2022. Biofuel supplies, which were negligible a few years ago, are set to
reach 15 billion gallons in 2012 and 36 billion gallons in 2022. As
production grows, ethanol and other biofuels displace gasoline and diesel;
at many gasoline pumps ethanol is now 10 percent of the blend, and the
ethanol industry is pushing to raise the percentage.
The refining industry is also faced with a new political reality. Unlike the
Bush administration, which offered support and incentives to petroleum
producers, the goal of the Obama administration is to encourage alternative
fuels and reduce the use of gasoline.
Refiners are complaining about the climate change legislation is making its
way through Congress, fearing that it will impose higher costs on the
petroleum industry and result in more gasoline imports from lower-cost
refiners overseas.
The increase in automobile fuel-efficiency standards - by 2016, the fleet
average will rise to 35.5 miles per gallon from an average of about 25 miles
per gallon for vehicles on the road today - is expected to reduce oil
consumption by a total of 1.8 billion barrels between 2012 and 2016.
Automakers from General Motors to Nissan are also betting on a new
generation of electric cars that will become available in the next few
years.
In a speech this month at the Los Angeles auto show, Robert A. Lutz, General
Motors' vice chairman for marketing, said, "The automobile industry simply
can no longer rely on oil to supply 98 percent of the world's automotive
energy requirements."
That leaves refiners with difficult choices: cut costs and hope to survive
the downturn; try to sell plants; or shut down unprofitable refineries. "The
industry is on its collective knees right now," said Charles T. Drevna,
president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
About 700,000 barrels a day of refining capacity have been idled or shut
down in North America in the last year, according Aaron Brady, an oil expert
at IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
The industry is expanding elsewhere around the world, especially in Asia,
where gasoline demand is expected to rise in the coming decades. Thanks to
multibillion dollar projects in China, India and Saudi Arabia, the industry
is expected to add two million barrels a day of refining capacity this year,
even as global oil demand drops by around 1.7 million barrels a day, or
about 2 percent, according to Barclays.
American refiners are bearing much of the brunt of the downturn. Last year,
the American industry operated at 85.3 percent of capacity, the lowest level
since 1988, according to the Energy Department. The utilization level is on
track to sink to 75 percent this year, compared with highs above 90 percent
just five years ago.
The Valero Energy Corporation, the nation's largest refiner, announced this
month that it had shut down its refinery in Delaware City, Del., which could
process 210,000 barrels of oil a day. Once the industry's highflier, Valero,
based in San Antonio, has seen its stock price plummet as a result of the
economic downturn. The stock is down 22 percent this year, after a 69
percent drop in 2008.
"The golden age of refining - if it ever existed - didn't last very long,"
said Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero.
Two other refineries were shut down since October: Sunoco's Eagle Point
plant, in Westville, N.J., and Western Refining's plant in Bloomfield, N.M.,
with a combined capacity of about 160,000 barrels a day. Refineries in
California and Aruba, the latter operating primarily to supply the United
States market, were also closed earlier this year.
Oil majors, like independent refiners, are also suffering. Exxon Mobil's
domestic refineries lost $203 million in the third quarter, a period when
earnings at its global refining business dropped by $2.7 billion, to $325
million. Chevron earned $34 million at its domestic refineries in the last
quarter, compared with more than $1 billion a year earlier.
In a bid to diversify its supplies, Valero, which has 15 refineries in the
United States, Aruba and Canada, has recently bought a handful of ethanol
refineries. Even though ethanol refiners have also struggled in the
recession, mandates passed by Congress ensure that increasing amounts of
that fuel are likely to be mixed into the nation's gasoline supply in coming
years.
"We recognize that ethanol is an important side of the fuel mix that is not
going to go anywhere," said Mr. Day, of Valero. "That's where the future of
demand growth and transportation fuels will be."
Sid9
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:4kboj5pe2knpl2aiq...@4ax.com...
December 24, 2009
*us*
wrote:
>... dopey, its [sic] not possible to prove ...
The data prove that the activities of humans
are affecting climate, causing global warming.
You have no data that'd disprove that.
>... a wanker like
You like making a fool of yourself in public,
don't you, denier.
>... idiot...
>MG
You sure are. It is, of course, your best excuse.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), Shrieking Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>No. It doesn't work that way. First, you make your
>predictions based on your models. Then you observe.
>Get back to us in 2100.
Where are your predictions based on your models?
Where are your observations?
"a summary of the scientific case for modern anthropogenic global warming"
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:47 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>... don't understand what "burden of proof" means.
If you could prove that human activity doesn't contribute
to global climate change, it'd mean something.
If you could prove that the planet is cooling, not warming,
it'd mean something.
If you could prove that warming of the earth's ecosystems
would be beneficial, not harmful, to human and other life,
it'd mean something.
What a shame you can't prove any of those things.
*us*
>Ewe ...
>MG
You're quite the sheep for the fascists.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:37:40 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>... dopey...
That must be why you can't understand the data
showing that human activities affect climate.
You certainly have no data to show otherwise.
*us*
wrote:
>... ewe...
>...ewe...ewe
Do you do anything besides bleat?
>claim a bogus mission ...
You do that for your fascist masters, don't you.
>... the most ignoant [sic] arrogant
>and dangerous scum on earth, bar none.
>MG
Actually, you're more of a laughingstock, though
useful as an example of a fascist pawn.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:19:49 -0500, "denier4destroyers" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
> When do ...
When do you get your first clue about the fact
that we will need to develop alternate energy
sources and limit pollution asap?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:37:40 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
tg
See, these Inuit know physics better than the deniers, although that's
not saying much.
> So there you have it, there's no global
> warming, just warm winds that inevitably took this man's "sled" away.
Yes, there could be no 'global warming', which is a strawman devised
by denialists, and yet all the ice on the planet could melt. But hey,
why bother with physics when you have talk radio.
-tg
*us*
>... have no data ... ignorant dumbasses ...
>certainly don't follow any scientific process
You'd already introduced yourself, liar/denier.
*us*
noise, impatiently:
>... producwe [sic]
You're incoherent, and you still have no data.
You don't even know what science is.
*us*
*us*
do anything right, even for himself.
I M @ good guy
Great link, Sid, and odd considering there
have been articles stating that a new refinery
hasn't been built in 30 years and that we are
importing more and more refined products.