Re: EPA Scientist Silenced in Coverup
fargo116
wrote:
> And now the EPA has its own “Climategate.” It is in the report by
> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> things -- that
> “As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
> conclusion based on current data.”
>
> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
economist?
Bet he didn't.
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> things -- that
>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>> it
>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>> data.
>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>
>> You can read the entire report
>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> economist?
>
> Bet he didn't.
>
> S. Olson
Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
University of California, San Diego. In 2004, Professor Oreskes
performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
analysis.
So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
caused by human activities. Case closed.
Lamont Cranston
Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of expertise
then.
> Of course we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend anyone
> holding degrees in more than one field.
Of course, we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend that a
climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
climatology than a physicist does.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> fargo116 wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
> >> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> things -- that
> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
> >> it
> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
> >> data.
> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> You can read the entire report
> >> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> > LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> > economist?
>
> > Bet he didn't.
>
> > S. Olson
>
> Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
> University of California, San Diego.
So . . . she's not a climatologist?
> In 2004, Professor Oreskes
> performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
> climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
> Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
> articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
> to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
> warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
> anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
> 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
> comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
> analysis.
>
> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
> caused by human activities. Case closed.
If the case is so clearly on the side of the alarmists scientists one
can only wonder why they universally refuse to debate/discuss the
specifics of their understanding publicly. Kinda makes you wonder.
Hmm. Could it be that there is a coverup?
fargo116
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
> holding degrees in more than one field.
Are you telling me that a guy with degrees in physics and economics
should have his data considered equal to that of a climatologist,
bunky? Is THAT what you are saying?
S. Olson
TUKA
> First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>> <farg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> EPA?s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis
>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>>> it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>>
>>>> You can read the entire report
>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>>
>>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>>> economist?
>>>
>>> Bet he didn't.
>>>
>>> S. Olson
>>
>> He also holds a degree in Physics moron.
>
> Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of expertise
> then.
Oh yeah? Well Gavin Schmidt has one in mathematics. I guess it's
beyond his, too. Not to mention Michael Mann, whose BS is in
Physics with a PhD in geophysics.
>
>> Of course we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend anyone
>> holding degrees in more than one field.
>
> Of course, we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend that a
> climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
> climatology than a physicist does.
Ad-hominems, dismissiveness, appeals to authority, and red herrings.
That's all you got, boy.
--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
tunderbar
You are an idiot. You completely do not understand how physics is the
fundamental science behind climateology. Moron.
tunderbar
wrote:
> fargo116 wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
> >> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> things -- that
> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
> >> it
> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
> >> data.
> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> You can read the entire report
> >> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> > LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> > economist?
>
> > Bet he didn't.
>
> > S. Olson
>
> Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
> University of California, San Diego. In 2004, Professor Oreskes
> performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
> climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
> Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
> articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
> to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
> warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
> anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
> 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
> comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
> analysis.
>
> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
> caused by human activities. Case closed.
Hey fuckwad. She cherry-picked about 1000 studies out of tens of
thousands, only those that explicitly mentioned global warming, then
she declared that they almost all supported global warming.
1) 1000 studies is not a consensus
2) her actual declared count of studies that supported agw was shown
to be flawed in a peer reviewed review of her study
Your last statement is absurd.
fargo116
Following your logic, a pre-law student should be just as good as a
guy who's been a lawyer for 15 years because he's studied the
'fundamentals' of the law..
Carlin's 'opinions' were reviewed and some were included in the final
report but he never was part of the working group on the issue of
global warming. When you look at his data you see why. Carlin focuses
on short-term temp trends over 10 years. Climatologists will tell you--
they have already told Carlin to his face--that that is simply too
short a span of time to accurately measure a complex thing like global
climate change, known in the vernacular as 'global warming'
How nice of you to jump in. I have two metaphorical fists and First is
probably getting tired of both of them hitting him in the face, so I
certainly can accomodate the likes of you.
And speaking of morons, that's c-l-i-m-a-t-o-l-o-g-y, dipshit.
Got that?
S. Olson
lab~rat >:-)
>On Dec 10, 10:22ÔøΩam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>wrote:
>> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ ÔøΩIt is in the report by
>> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> things -- that
>> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>
>> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination. ÔøΩ
>
>LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>economist?
>
>Bet he didn't.
What are Obama and John Holdren?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<farg...@yahoo.com> puked:
>On Dec 10, 10:22ÔøΩam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>wrote:
>> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ ÔøΩIt is in the report by
>> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> things -- that
>> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>
>> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination. ÔøΩ
>
>LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>economist?
>
>Bet he didn't.
>
>S. Olson
To be honest, I think it might be a good idea to bring an economist
into the fray of global warming discussions. Especially as it relates
to cap and trade and what it will do to our economy.
lab~rat >:-)
<Lamont....@Shadow.com> puked:
>> He also holds a degree in Physics moron.
>
>Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of expertise
>then.
Yep, just like Barry's Science Czar, John Holdren, who holds the exact
same degree. Funny, ain't it?
lab~rat >:-)
<Lamont....@Shadow.com> puked:
>fargo116 wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ It is in the report by
>>> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>
>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>> things -- that
>>> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>> it
>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>> data.
>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>>
>>> You can read the entire report
>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>
>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>
>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>> economist?
>>
>> Bet he didn't.
>>
>> S. Olson
>
>Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
>University of California, San Diego. In 2004, Professor Oreskes
>performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
>climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
>Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
>articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
>to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
>warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
>anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
>75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
>comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
>analysis.
>
>So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
>journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
>caused by human activities. Case closed.
So it's your opinion scientific method is used to disprove a
hypothesis? The burden of proof is on you, and there is dissent.
Here are a few examples, along with other reputable studies relating
to Greenland. Peer reviewed as well. It took two seconds of
searching to find.
Sampling of Recent Scientific Studies:
1) A 2006 study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University found
that ÔøΩGreenlandÔøΩs glaciers have been shrinking for the past century,
suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by
global warming.ÔøΩ (LINK) Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde explained that
the study was ÔøΩthe most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements
of GreenlandÔøΩs glaciers, according to an August 21, 2006 article in
Agence France-Presse. ÔøΩSeventy percent of the glaciers have been
shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880ÔøΩs,ÔøΩ Yde explained. [EPW
Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]
Niels Tvis Knudsen of Aarhus University co-authored the paper.
2) A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found
the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in
1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ÔøΩcould not be the causeÔøΩ of
warming. (LINK)
ÔøΩWe find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in
recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming
periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however
the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in
1995-2005,ÔøΩ the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006
Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the
southeastern coast of Greenland, ÔøΩthe years 2004 and 2005 were closer
to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930ÔøΩs and
1940ÔøΩs.ÔøΩ The study further continued, ÔøΩAlmost all post-1955
temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate)
than the (1881-1955) temperature average.ÔøΩ
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, ÔøΩAlthough there has been
a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to
2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the
early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or
other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of
1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of
warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems
to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general
increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990ÔøΩs can
be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature
changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].ÔøΩ
ÔøΩTo summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that
the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused
by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.ÔøΩ The
co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National
Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.
3) An October 2005 study in the journal Science found GreenlandÔøΩs
higher elevation interior ice sheet growing while lower elevations ice
is thinning. According to a November 8, 2005 article in European
Research, ÔøΩAn international team of climatologists and oceanographers,
led by the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) in
Norway, estimates that GreenlandÔøΩs interior ice sheet has grown, on
average, 6cm per year in areas above 1 500m between 1992 and 2003.ÔøΩ
Lead author, Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC ÔøΩsays the sheet growth is due
to increased snowfall brought about by variability in regional
atmospheric circulation, or the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation
(NAO),ÔøΩ according to the article. (LINK) & (LINK to Journal Science)
4) A June 6, 2006 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of
Geophysical Research concluded: ÔøΩThe warmest year in the extended
Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are
the warmest decades.ÔøΩ The paper, entitled ÔøΩExtending Greenland
temperature records into the late 18th century,ÔøΩ was authored by B.
Vinther, K. Andersen, P. Jones, K. Briffa, and J. Cappelen. The report
examined temperature data from Greenland going back to 1784. (LINK) &
(LINK) & (LINK)
5) A February 8, 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in Science found
the melt rate of two of GreenlandÔøΩs largest glaciers has ÔøΩsuddenly
slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the
previous rate,ÔøΩ according to the New York Times blog (2-8-07). (LINK)
The report found that the Kangerdlugssuaq glacierÔøΩs ÔøΩaverage thinning
over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with
some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.ÔøΩ (LINK)
University of WashingtonÔøΩs Applied Physics Laboratory researcher Ian
Howat, the lead author of the report, explained ÔøΩGreenland was about
as warm or warmer in the 1930ÔøΩs and 40ÔøΩs, and many of the glaciers
were smaller than they are now.ÔøΩ ÔøΩHowever, it does suggest that large
variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate
variability,ÔøΩ Howat, also a researcher with the University of
ColoradoÔøΩs National Snow and Ice Data Center, explained. ÔøΩSpecial care
must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are
evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because
short-term spikes could yield erroneous long term trends,ÔøΩ Howat
cautioned.
6) A July 6, 2007 study published in the journal Science about
Greenland by an international team of scientists found DNA ÔøΩevidence
that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived
the EarthÔøΩs last period of global warming,ÔøΩ according to a Boston
Globe article. (6-6-07) (LINK) According to the article, the study
indicates ÔøΩGreenlandÔøΩs ice may be less susceptible to the massive
meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the main
author (Eske Willerslev, professor of evolutionary biology at
University of Copenhagen) said in an interview. ÔøΩThis may have
implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They
may withstand rising temperatures,ÔøΩ Willerslev said. The article
explained, ÔøΩThe discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half
ÔøΩa-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice sheet
remained frozen even during the EarthÔøΩs last ÔøΩinterglacial periodÔøΩ ÔøΩ
some 120,000 years ago ÔøΩ when average temperatures were 9 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than they are now.ÔøΩ Willerslev addressed scary
computer model predictions of a massive Greenland melt. ÔøΩ[The study]
suggests a problem with [computer] modelsÔøΩ that predict melting ice
from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations,
Willerslev said. The study found ÔøΩGreenland really was green, before
Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern
HemisphereÔøΩsomewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago,ÔøΩ according
to the article.
7) Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of University of Virginia and
the Virginia State climatologist wrote the scenario promoted by former
Vice President Al Gore and others showing GreenlandÔøΩs ice melting and
raising sea levels by 20 feet is not supported anywhere in scientific
literature, not even by the United Nations. ÔøΩWhere is the support for
this claim? Certainly not in the recent [Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)] Policymakers Summary from the United Nations.
Under the [IPCCÔøΩs] medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse
gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by
2100. GoreÔøΩs film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent,ÔøΩ
Michaels wrote in a February 23, 2007 article. (LINK) ÔøΩAccording to
satellite data published in [the journal] Science in November 2005,ÔøΩ
Michaels wrote, ÔøΩGreenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per
century.ÔøΩ ÔøΩNowhere in the traditionally [peer-reviewed] refereed
scientific literature do we find any support for GoreÔøΩs [Greenland
melt] hypothesis,ÔøΩ Michaels concluded.
8) Geologist Morten Hald, an Arctic expert at of the University of
Tromso in Norway has also questioned the reliability of computer
models predicting a melting Arctic. "The main problem is that these
models are often based on relatively new climate data. The thermometer
has only been in existence for 150 years and information on
temperature which is 150 years old does not capture the large natural
changes,ÔøΩ Hald, who is participating with a Norwegian national team in
Arctic climate research, said in a May 18, 2007 article. (LINK) The
article continued, ÔøΩProfessor Hald believes the models which are
utilized to make prognoses about the future climate changes consider
paleoclimate only to a minor degree.ÔøΩ ÔøΩStudies of warm periods in the
past, like during the Stone Ages can provide valuable knowledge to
understand and tackle the warmer climate in the future,ÔøΩ Hald
explained.
9) Polar expert Ivan Frolov, the head of RussiaÔøΩs Science and Research
Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Regions, said atmospheric
temperature would have to much higher to make continental glaciers
melt. ÔøΩMany hundred years or 20-30 degree temperature rise would have
made glaciers melt,ÔøΩ Frolov said in a December 14, 2006 Russian news
article. (LINK) Frolov noted that currently GreenlandÔøΩs and Antarctic
glaciers have the tendency to grow. The article explained, ÔøΩFrolov
says cooling and warming periods are common for our planet ÔøΩ
temperature fluctuations amounted to 10-12 degrees. However, such
fluctuations havenÔøΩt caused glaciers to melt. Thus, we shouldnÔøΩt be
afraid they melt today.ÔøΩ
10) Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both
University of Alaska FairbanksÔøΩ Geophysical Institute and
International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named one of
the "1000 Most Cited Scientists," told a Congressional hearing in 2006
that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic
were nothing more than ÔøΩscience fiction.ÔøΩ "All the papers since (the
advent of satellites) show warming. That's what I call 'instant
climatology.' I'm trying to tell young scientists, 'You can't study
climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.'ÔøΩ (LINK)
11) Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of
Pennsylvania rejected fears of a catastrophic 20 foot sea level rise.
"Sea level is rising," Giegengack said, but it's been rising ever
since warming set in 18,000 years ago, he explained according to a
February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. But the Earth's global
ocean level is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year -- less than the
thickness of one nickel, Giegengack further explained. ÔøΩAt the present
rate of sea-level rise itÔøΩs going to take 3,500 years to get up there
(to a rise of 20 feet) So if for some reason this warming process
that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesnÔøΩt
know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global
warming," he said. (LINK) Giegengack also noted that the history of
the last one billion years on the planet reveals "only about 5% of
that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so
cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice." (LINK)
12) Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared "the
rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot
happen." Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal
erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at
Stockholm University, noted on August 6, 2007: "When we were coming
out of the last ice age, huge ice sheets were melting rapidly and the
sea level rose at an average of one meter per century. If the
Greenland ice sheet stated to melt at the same rate - which is
unlikely - sea level would rise by less than 100 mm - 4 inches per
century." Morner, who was president of the INQUA Commission on Sea
Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003, has published a
new booklet entitled "The Greatest Lie Ever Told," to refute claims of
catastrophic sea level rise. (LINK)
13) In addition, current climate fears tends to ignore the fact that
the Vikings arrived in Greenland around 1000 A.D. and found it to be
habitable settlement that they farmed for hundreds of years. A 2003
Harvard University study found (LINK) the Earth was warmer than today
during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D. without
modern SUVÔøΩs or man-made CO2 emissions. The Vikings abandoned
Greenland when the Little Ice Age took hold.
14) Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due
to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made
catastrophic global warming models. ÔøΩA new report on climate over the
world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late
20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global
climate models,ÔøΩ reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing
the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric
sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd
Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic
temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK)
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of
Antarctica right now,ÔøΩ Bromwich explained. The release explains that
BromwichÔøΩs research team found ÔøΩno increase in precipitation over
Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both
precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a
warming of the planet.ÔøΩ
Top UN Scientist Explains Why Climate Models Predictions Are Failing
Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer
model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a
lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New
Zealand Herald in June 2007, ÔøΩHalf of the variability in the climate
system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically
well." (LINK)
A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, meteorologist
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of
numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The
Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the
critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further.
Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, "I am of the opinion that most
scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate
models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence
unqualified to sell their products to society." (LINK)
Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of
Pennsylvania noted ÔøΩfor most of EarthÔøΩs history, the globe has been
warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been
cooler,ÔøΩ Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in
Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK) The article continued, ÔøΩ[Giegengack]
says carbon dioxide doesnÔøΩt control global temperature, and certainly
not in a direct linear way.ÔøΩ
Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons
climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of
CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2's warming impact
diminishes. ÔøΩEven if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect
on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature
and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first
coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very
little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black
paint,ÔøΩ Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press.
(LINK)
New data is revealing what may perhaps be the ultimate inconvenient
truth for climate doomsayers:
Global warming stopped in 1998.
Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the
2007 book ÔøΩThe Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,ÔøΩ
explained in July 2007: (LINK)
ÔøΩIn reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both
the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes
no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2,
because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the
fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty ÔøΩ of
battling away the cosmic rays that come from ÔøΩthe chilling starsÔøΩ ÔøΩ
fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.ÔøΩ
Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in
man-made global warming to skeptics (LINK) and the new peer-reviewed
research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to
threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics. (See: EPA
to Probe E-mail Threatening to ÔøΩDestroyÔøΩ Career of Climate Skeptic -
LINK )
One final note: To many residents of Greenland, a little warming may
not be that bad. A June 7, 2007 Washington Post article detailed how
GreenlandÔøΩs residents were ÔøΩcheeringÔøΩ on warming. "I can keep the
sheep out two weeks longer to feed in hills in the autumn. And I can
grow more hay. The sheep get fatter," said one resident. (LINK)
richp
wrote:
> And now the EPA has its own “Climategate.” It is in the report by
> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> things -- that
> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
Hey BRAIN DRAIN Alan is an economist
bvallely
wrote:
Father Gregor Mendel was also a physicist, and yet his paper on sweet
peas was decades ahead of that era's biologists. One can only sigh
when considering how much further medicine would be today if Natural
History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865 wasn't such a biased
clubhouse.
Lamont Cranston
news:0f0cdb69-34bf-429e...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 10, 9:57 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>> fargo116 wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter
>>>> to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD
>>>> supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific
>>>> viewpoint because it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
They don't. The topic has been discussed for decades.
> Kinda makes you wonder.
>
> Hmm. Could it be that there is a coverup?
Right. Are the black helicopters landing in your yard?
Lamont Cranston
news:slrnhi2ef...@bill.heins.net
LOL!
> I guess it's
> beyond his, too. Not to mention Michael Mann, whose BS is in
> Physics with a PhD in geophysics.
No climatology degrees, huh? Do you go to an auto mechanic to have a
tooth filled?
>
>>
>>> Of course we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend anyone
>>> holding degrees in more than one field.
>>
>> Of course, we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend that a
>> climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
>> climatology than a physicist does.
>
> Ad-hominems, dismissiveness, appeals to authority, and red herrings.
> That's all you got, boy.
I simply responded in kind, sweetie.
Lamont Cranston
news:ffdbfb7a-ae17-47b8...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 10, 11:57 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>> fargo116 wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter
>>>> to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD
>>>> supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific
>>>> viewpoint because it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
No, she didn't. Her work has never been refuted.
>
> 1) 1000 studies is not a consensus
It is when the score is 1000 to 0.
> 2) her actual declared count of studies that supported agw was shown
> to be flawed in a peer reviewed review of her study
LIE.
>
> Your last statement is absurd.
You and your flat-earther friends are absurd. Case closed.
mrbawana2u
> [nothing worth anything]
Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
scampering hither and thither in the face of
predatory evidence that they and their pet
theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind
of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
find themselves trapped in a cage with a
hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> [retard turds flushed]
mrbawana2u
wrote:
>[tard turds flushed]
mrbawana2u
Yes.
A climatology is not a real science, fucktard.
Show me where any of those frauds have
changed the climate, you delusional fucktard.
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> [nothing intelligent]
Lamont Cranston
news:837863f4-3b78-47e7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 10, 12:26 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> [nothing worth anything]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
> theories may be doomed,
Predatory evidence? ROTFLMAO!! Another flat-earther makes a fool of
herself.
James
A climatologist is anybody.
TimK
"First Post" <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote in message
news:0eb2i5534tjh0td62...@4ax.com...
> And now the EPA has its own "Climategate." It is in the report by
> EPA's Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.
>
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
If you don't feel stupid you should.
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 10:22Êam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> And now the EPA has its own ÒClimategate.Ó ÊIt is in the report by
> >> EPAÕs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> things -- that
> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>
> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >economist?
>
> >Bet he didn't.
>
> What are Obama and John Holdren?
Two people who weren't part of the working group either, Ratface.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 10:22Êam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> And now the EPA has its own ÒClimategate.Ó ÊIt is in the report by
> >> EPAÕs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> things -- that
> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>
> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >economist?
>
> >Bet he didn't.
>
> >S. Olson
>
> To be honest, I think it might be a good idea to bring an economist
> into the fray of global warming discussions. Especially as it relates
> to cap and trade and what it will do to our economy.
He was. Just not on the science of whether it exists because he wasn't
qualfied to do so.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:04:28 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
>
> >> He also holds a degree in Physics moron.
>
> >Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of expertise
> >then.
>
> Yep, just like Barry's Science Czar, John Holdren, who holds the exact
> same degree. Funny, ain't it?
LOL...Dr. Holdren was not on the EPA working group, now was he,
Ratface?
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:57:31 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
>
>
>
> >fargo116 wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>> EPAÕs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
> >>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >>> things -- that
> >>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
> >>> it
> >>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
> >>> data.
> >>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
S. Olson
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> >> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
> >> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
> >> caused by human activities. Case closed.
>
> > If the case is so clearly on the side of the alarmists scientists one
> > can only wonder why they universally refuse to debate/discuss the
> > specifics of their understanding publicly.
>
> They don't. The topic has been discussed for decades.
Bullshit! Show us one climatologists that is willing to discuss/
debate the specifics of their, supposedly, scientific belief in AGW.
Just one!
Address the issue you evasive twit.
fargo116
Well, if it isn't Banana, himself. LOL Wassa matta Banana? Didn't you
get enough of being humiliated over the Waco Affair the other year?
Now you wanna take THIS on? Banana was SO scared of my posts over
Waco, he cut them so I wouldn't be surprised that he's tried it here;
with Lamont too, as a matter of fact. (Get ready for a wild ride,
Lamont, because this Mouth That Walks Like a Man will reach veritable
Everests of stupidity.)
'Pajamas media' is a compilation of blogs run by the right-wing
dingbat Roger Simon, who has been wrong lots of times about lots of
things but who just doesn't have the decency to shut up for a very
very long time.
This post, for example, is from a blog written by David Solway, a
Canadian poet who should really stick to musings about Israel.
(Assuming he knows what he's talking about there, too.) When he gets
into science, the man is out of his depth. The funny thing is, he
knows it. Want some proof? Okay.
Notice how he uses the phrase 'may be doomed?' That's called a
'weasel phrase'. One presumes since he makes his bone by writing, he
knows that. Any legitimate journalist worth his salt would. Now why
doesn't Solway write the more stronger, 'it IS doomed'? I'll tell you
why. Because the stolen e-mails he references don't even come CLOSE to
disproving global warming. Furthermore, he knows it. Why else would he
use a weasel phrase if his case wasn't as weak as water?
The 'climate warmers' Solway likes to disparage are not 'spinning'
They are trying to tell a dumbass that the e-mails he claims say one
thing, don't say that at all. Instead of hamsters in a cage, Solway
should use a more apropos metaphor, like a dog barking in his house
trying to awaken its stubborn master because it smells smoke.
But if you want a more pithy Texan phrase, how about, "Son, don't piss
down my back and then try and tell me it's raining."
S. Olson
David Hartung
> First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis
>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>>> it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>>
>>>> You can read the entire report
>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>>
>>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>>> economist?
>>>
>>> Bet he didn't.
>>>
>>> S. Olson
>>
>
> Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of expertise
> then.
Using your logic, someone with a PHD in engineering, could not be a
climate scientist for NASA, yet it happens. As luck would have it, I
have a cousin in that exact situation.
Research which is as broad as climate study is by its very nature
multi-disciplinary. Depending on which field of physics, I can very
easily see that discipline as being an integral part of any climate
research project.
>> Of course we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend anyone
>> holding degrees in more than one field.
>
> Of course, we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend that a
> climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
> climatology than a physicist does.
Are you certain?
David Hartung
> Are you telling me that a guy with degrees in physics and economics
> should have his data considered equal to that of a climatologist,
> bunky? Is THAT what you are saying?
Perhaps.
If you will check, climatology as a degreed discipline is a relatively
new thing. It is very likely that an experienced physicist would be more
knowledgeable on the subject than an inexperienced climatologist.
David Hartung
> Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
What evidence do you have that any skeptic *is* in the pay of "big oil".
fargo116
Jesus, Valley Girl. Mendel never received a degree in physics. Never.
He STUDIED it just like he studied mathematics, zoology, natural
science and philology but he never got degrees in THOSE, either. He
TAUGHT physics because the regular teacher had gotten sick but he
never passed the qualifying exams to be a full time teacher.
>and yet his paper on sweet
> peas was decades ahead of that era's biologists. One can only sigh
> when considering how much further medicine would be today if Natural
> History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865 wasn't such a biased
> clubhouse.
Probably not all that farther along. What? You think they would have
been treating Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia then if Mendel had been
a member? The National History Society was not as 'biased' as you
think. Without realizing it, Mendel was creating an entirely new
science. Now Carlin, on the other hand, is not creating anything. What
Carlin is basically doing is driving a few blocks around town in a
Honda Civic and then claiming it gets lousy gas mileage on the
highway.
S. Olson
Roger Dewhurst
> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> things -- that
>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>
>> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> economist?
>
> Bet he didn't.
>
> S. Olson
Stern is an economist but I am sure you will credit him as an expert.
R
Roger Dewhurst
> First Post wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis
>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>>> it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>>
>>>> You can read the entire report
>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>>
>>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>>> economist?
>>>
>>> Bet he didn't.
>>>
>>> S. Olson
>>
>
> then.
>
>> holding degrees in more than one field.
>
> climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
> climatology than a physicist does.
There is no distinct science of climatology. Climatologists come from
many disciplines, geology, physics, botany, meteorology among others.
Since the history of the earth is meshed with the history of its climate
geology is probably the key science involved.
R
Roger Dewhurst
> fargo116 wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>
>>>
>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>> things -- that
>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>> it
>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>> data.
>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>
>>> You can read the entire report
>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>
>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>> economist?
>>
>> Bet he didn't.
>>
>> S. Olson
>
> University of California, San Diego. In 2004, Professor Oreskes
> performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
> climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
> Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
> articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
> to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
> warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
> anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities). 75%
> of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
> comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
> analysis.
>
> caused by human activities. Case closed.
No. Oreskes has been totally rubbished. You should have noticed.
Roger Dewhurst
> On Dec 10, 12:03 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:57:31 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
>> <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>> fargo116 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>>>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>>> things -- that
>>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>>>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>>>>> it
>>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>>> data.
>>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
Many!
R
>
> S. Olson
Bruno Muscarelli
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b21901a$0$5343$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> fargo116 wrote:
>
> > Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
>
> What evidence do you have that any skeptic *is* in the pay of "big oil".
Do your own homework, Hartung. I have seen article after article addressing
that very topic, but if you only watch bass fishing shows, I guess you won't
know that, will you? I have seen your posts for a long time, and you, above
all the others here, are WILLFULLY ignorant.
mrbawana2u
David Hartung
Articles from where, rabid left wing sites?
David Hartung
I find it interesting that I ask a civil question, and you respond with
abuse. The simple fact is that disagreement with you does not constitute
ignorance. Something you seem to not understand.
Also, the fact that I am not aware of attack articles in left wing trash
sites does not make me ignorant. Unless I am badly mistaken, that is
where most of the accusations that climate skeptics are in the employ of
"big oil" are found.
Men_of_Mind
> Bruno Muscarelli wrote:
>> "David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b21901a$0$5343$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>> fargo116 wrote:
>>>> Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
>>>
>>> What evidence do you have that any skeptic *is* in the pay of "big oil".
>>
>> Do your own homework, Hartung. I have seen article after article addressing
>> that very topic, but if you only watch bass fishing shows, I guess you won't
>> know that, will you? I have seen your posts for a long time, and you, above
>> all the others here, are WILLFULLY ignorant.
>
> I find it interesting that I ask a civil question, and you respond with
> abuse
I find it amusing that you invite such abuse with your gratingly
condescending ignorant remarks and false premises, and then try
to act surprised that nobody is buying into your false claims..
--But, you bear false witness all the time. You'll pay for it..
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Any AGW nut would be gullible enough to think
that an energy company would pay for anything
posted in a newsgroup.
Lamont Cranston
news:4b216d95$0$27013$d94e...@news.iglou.com
Untrue. Take you, for example.
lab~rat >:-)
<farg...@yahoo.com> puked:
>On Dec 10, 12:03ÔøΩpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:57:31 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
>> <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >fargo116 wrote:
>> >> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ It is in the report by
>> >>> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> >>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>> >>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> >>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> >>> things -- that
>> >>> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>> >>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> >>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
>> >>> it
>> >>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>> >>> data.
>> >>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> >>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>> >>> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>
>> >>> You can read the entire report
>> >>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> >>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> >>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> >>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>
>> >> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>> >> economist?
>>
>> >> Bet he didn't.
>>
>> >> S. Olson
>>
>> >Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
>> >University of California, San Diego. ÔøΩIn 2004, Professor Oreskes
>> >performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
>> >climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. ÔøΩShe surveyed the ISI
>> >Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
>> >articles published in reputable scientific journals. ÔøΩThe survey failed
>> >to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
>> >warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
>> >anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
>> >75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
>> >comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
>> >analysis.
>>
>> >So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
>> >journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
>> >caused by human activities. ÔøΩCase closed.
>>
>> So it's your opinion scientific method is used to disprove a
>> hypothesis? ÔøΩThe burden of proof is on you, and there is dissent.
>
> Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
People that don't want to be taxed further because they drive a car or
buy groceries brought to a store by truck?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
Ok, point to the skeptic paid by big oil in these peer reviewed
studies, hot shot:
lab~rat >:-)
<farg...@yahoo.com> puked:
>On Dec 10, 11:51ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>> <fargo...@yahoo.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 10, 10:22ÔøΩam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ ÔøΩIt is in the report by
>> >> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> >> things -- that
>> >> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
>> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
>> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>> >> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>
>> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination. ÔøΩ
>>
>> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>> >economist?
>>
>> >Bet he didn't.
>>
>> What are Obama and John Holdren?
>
>Two people who weren't part of the working group either, Ratface.
So why don't you require the people that are the biggest cheerleaders
for this scam have some scientific credentials?
lab~rat >:-)
<farg...@yahoo.com> puked:
>On Dec 10, 11:52ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>> <fargo...@yahoo.com> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 10, 10:22ÔøΩam, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >> And now the EPA has its own ÔøΩClimategate.ÔøΩ ÔøΩIt is in the report by
>> >> EPAÔøΩs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
>> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>
>> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>> >> things -- that
>> >> ÔøΩAs of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
>> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
>> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
>> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
>> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>> >> conclusion based on current data.ÔøΩ
>>
>> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>
>> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>> >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination. ÔøΩ
>>
>> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>> >economist?
>>
>> >Bet he didn't.
>>
>> >S. Olson
>>
>> To be honest, I think it might be a good idea to bring an economist
>> into the fray of global warming discussions. ÔøΩEspecially as it relates
>> to cap and trade and what it will do to our economy.
>
>He was. Just not on the science of whether it exists because he wasn't
>qualfied to do so.
>
IOW, he wasn't qualified to cook the data and join the fray of chicken
littles?
Lamont Cranston
news:3a818254-a2e7-4b98...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 10, 12:45 pm, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
>>>> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming
>>>> is caused by human activities. Case closed.
>>
>>> If the case is so clearly on the side of the alarmists scientists
>>> one can only wonder why they universally refuse to debate/discuss
>>> the specifics of their understanding publicly.
>>
>> They don't. The topic has been discussed for decades.
>
> Bullshit!
How does one become as stupid as you are? There have been thousands of
peer reviewed articles addressing global warming published in many
reputable scientific journals. Peer review is the evaluation of a work
by other experts in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the
quality of the work in that field. It is based on the concept that a
larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more
weaknesses and errors in a work and will be able to make a more
impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group
responsible for creating the work. Global warming has been discussed
for decades in this very manner.
Lamont Cranston
news:e79a3c48-603e-49fa...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 10, 6:38 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2:33 pm,mrbawana2u<mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 12:26 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> [nothing worth anything]
>
>> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
>> scampering hither and thither in the face of
>> predatory evidence that they and their pet
>> of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
>> find themselves trapped in a cage with a
>> hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
>
>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/
LOL! Fargo, you were absolutely correct. You predicted that he would
simply snip your comments and that's exactly what the dumbfuck did.
Just for the record, here's what you orginally posted:
Lamont Cranston
Do you use to services of an auto mechanic to have your teeth cleaned?
mrbawana2u
wrote:
> [who cares what the retard wrote?]
Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
scampering hither and thither in the face of
predatory evidence that they and their pet
theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind
fargo116
So for the SECOND time, are you telling me that a guy with degrees in
physics and economics should have his data considered equal to that of
a climatologist? Wait a sec, not his DATA, his CONCLUSIONS.
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
> On Dec 10, 3:49 pm, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [nothing intelligent]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
Predatory evidence? ROTFLMAO!! Another flat-earther makes a fool of
herself.
> theories may be doomed, I�m put in mind
fargo116
AGAIN, show me the name of a skeptic who is not in the pay of Big Oil.
S. Olson
David Hartung
My cousin is a NASA climate research scientist. Her PHD is in
engineering, but yet she is considered to be an expert in the field of
climate research, and in fact has published in that field.
Are you saying that her conclusions are not valid?
fargo116
Actually, climatology has been a full-blown science since the mid
1940s when Helmut Landsberg applied statistical analysis to climate
change on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. There were climate researchers
as far back as Shen Kuo of China in the late 11th century.
Although geology is important, it is not the key science. Mathematics
and geography are.
S. Olson
fargo116
Already answered this, Banana? What else you got?
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:36 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 12:03Êpm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:57:31 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
> >> <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com> puked:
>
> >> >fargo116 wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> EPAÍs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> >>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
> >> >>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> >>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> >>> things -- that
> >> >>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> >>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
> >> >>> data.
> >> >>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> >>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> >>> You can read the entire report
> >> >>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> >>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> >>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> >> >>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> >> >> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >> >> economist?
>
> >> >> Bet he didn't.
>
> >> >> S. Olson
>
> >> >Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
> >> >performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
> >> >Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
> >> >to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
> >> >warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
> >> >anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
> >> >75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
> >> >comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
> >> >analysis.
>
> >> >So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
> >> >journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
>
> >> So it's your opinion scientific method is used to disprove a
>
> > Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
>
> People that don't want to be taxed further because they drive a car or
> buy groceries brought to a store by truck?
So some people who don't want to do anything are whining. What a
surprise. Now, who are the scientists who are not in the pay of Big
Oil who dissent that global warming is happening and being caused by
humans?
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
> On Dec 11, 9:51 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>> [who cares what the retard wrote?]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
> of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
> find themselves trapped in a cage with a
> hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/
LOL! Fargo, you were absolutely correct. You predicted that he would
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:38:07 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 11:51Êam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
> >> <fargo...@yahoo.com> puked:
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> And now the EPA has its own ñClimategate.î æIt is in the report by
> >> >> EPAÍs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> >> things -- that
> >> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> >> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> >> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>
> >> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >> >economist?
>
> >> >Bet he didn't.
>
> >> What are Obama and John Holdren?
>
> >Two people who weren't part of the working group either, Ratface.
>
> So why don't you require the people that are the biggest cheerleaders
> for this scam have some scientific credentials?
Because the ones who DO the studies and who are experienced in global
climate change -- known in shorthand as global warming -- DO have
scientific credentials.
Now, AGAIN, name me a scientist who is a skeptic of global warming who
is not in the pay of Big Oil. This is the THIRD time I have asked for
an answer to a VERY simple question.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:39:26 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 11:52Êam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
> >> <fargo...@yahoo.com> puked:
>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> And now the EPA has its own ñClimategate.î æIt is in the report by
> >> >> EPAÍs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> >> things -- that
> >> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> >> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> >> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>
> >> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>
> >> >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >> >economist?
>
> >> >Bet he didn't.
>
> >> >S. Olson
>
> >> To be honest, I think it might be a good idea to bring an economist
> >> to cap and trade and what it will do to our economy.
>
> >He was. Just not on the science of whether it exists because he wasn't
> >qualfied to do so.
>
> IOW, he wasn't qualified to cook the data and join the fray of chicken
> littles?
What data was cooked, Ratface? Tell us.
S. Olson
David Hartung
> Now, AGAIN, name me a scientist who is a skeptic of global warming who
> is not in the pay of Big Oil. This is the THIRD time I have asked for
> an answer to a VERY simple question.
Please name one who is, and provide supporting cites.
Lamont Cranston
news:hfs6k0$mo5$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz
> Lamont Cranston wrote:
>> fargo116 wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> And now the EPA has its own �Climategate.� It is in the report by
>>>> EPA�s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter
>>>> to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>> things -- that
>>>> hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD
>>>> supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific
>>>> viewpoint because it
>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>> data.
>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>>
>>>> You can read the entire report
>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
>>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>>
>>> economist?
>>>
>>> Bet he didn't.
>>>
>>> S. Olson
>>
>> performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject
>> surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer
>> reviewed, scientific articles published in reputable scientific
>> the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is
>> predominantly anthropogenic (for you anti-science flat-earthers,
>> that means caused by human activities). 75% of the papers agreed
>> with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way,
>> but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis.
>>
>> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
>> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
>
> No. Oreskes has been totally rubbished. You should have noticed.
No, she has not. You should have noticed.
fargo116
And her name is? Does she dispute the existence of global warming?
S. Olson
fargo116
> fargo116 wrote:
> > Are you telling me that a guy with degrees in physics and economics
> > should have his data considered equal to that of a climatologist,
> > bunky? Is THAT what you are saying?
>
> Perhaps.
LOL...you can't even say 'yes.' Well, if you had, you would be wrong.
> If you will check, climatology as a degreed discipline is a relatively
> new thing. It is very likely that an experienced physicist would be more
> knowledgeable on the subject than an inexperienced climatologist.
LOL. Climatology has been a full-blown science for almost 70 years.
Before that there were climate researchers going back to the 11th
Century.
It is very likely that an experienced physicist, if he is going to try
and make conclusions based on data for complex systems, have more than
10 years of it, which is what Dr. Carlin had. This is why he wasn't
included in the working group studying this problem. "Hi, I'm going to
tell you how the world works based on what happened in the 80s."
Christ onna crutch.
S. Olson
fargo116
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:57:31 -0800, "Lamont Cranston"
> >> <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com> puked:
>
> >>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> EPAÕs Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >>>>> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
> >>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
> >>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >>>>> things -- that
> >>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >>>>> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
> >>>>> data.
> >>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
> >>>>> You can read the entire report
> >>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
> >>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> >>>>> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
> >>>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> >>>> economist?
> >>>> Bet he didn't.
> >>>> S. Olson
> >>> Naomi Oreskes is Professor of History and Science Studies at the
> >>> University of California, San Diego. In 2004, Professor Oreskes
> >>> performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
> >>> climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI
> >>> Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific
> >>> articles published in reputable scientific journals. The survey failed
> >>> to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global
> >>> warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic (for you
> >>> anti-science flat-earthers, that means caused by human activities).
> >>> 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
> >>> comment either way, but instead focused on methods or paleoclimate
> >>> analysis.
> >>> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
> >>> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming is
> >>> caused by human activities. Case closed.
>
> > Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
>
> Many!
>
> R
I'm not talking about some pipe-fitter in Moline, Ill. afraid his gas
bill will go up if we do something about global warming, Rog. Name me
one scientist who doesn't believe global warming is caused by humans
that is not in the pay of Big Oil.
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
> Lamont Cranston wrote:
>> First Post wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post
>>>> <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter
>>>>> to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag
>>>>> order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
>>>>> things -- that
>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports,
>>>>> is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint
>>>>> because it
>>>>> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
>>>>> data.
>>>>> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
>>>>> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
>>>>>
>>>>> You can read the entire report
>>>>> here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
>>>>> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was
>>>>> not considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>>>>
>>>> LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
>>>> economist?
>>>>
>>>> Bet he didn't.
>>>>
>>>> S. Olson
>>>
>>
>> Physics, huh? Climatology would seem to be beyond his area of
>> expertise then.
>>
>>> Of course we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend anyone
>>> holding degrees in more than one field.
>>
>> Of course, we know how difficult it is for you to comprehend that a
>> climatologist can be expected to know significantly more about
>> climatology than a physicist does.
>
> There is no distinct science of climatology.
Yes, there is. Many colleges offer degrees in Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climatology.
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
Lamont Cranston
> On Dec 11, 10:20 am, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [tard turds flushed]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
> of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
> find themselves trapped in a cage with a
> hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/
LOL! Fargo, you were absolutely correct. You predicted that he would
fargo116
What is it with you guys and answering questions? Tongue, don't try
and get me to do YOUR homework for you just cause it's hard. For the
FOURTH time, name me a scientist who is not in the pay of Big Oil
because it's looking more and more as if you don't have one.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Dec 10, 1:10 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:40 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:39 -0800 (PST), fargo116
>
> > > >On Dec 10, 10:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> And now the EPA has its own “Climategate.” It is in the report by
> > > >> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> > > >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> > > >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> > > >> things -- that
> > > >> “As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
> > > >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> > > >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> > > >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> > > >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> > > >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
> > > >> conclusion based on current data.”
>
> > > >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> > > >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> > > >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> > > >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
> > > >LOL...did he say that Dr. Carlin is not a climate scientist but an
> > > >economist?
>
> > > >Bet he didn't.
>
> > > >S. Olson
>
> > > He also holds a degree in Physics moron.
> > > holding degrees in more than one field.
>
> > should have his data considered equal to that of a climatologist,
> > bunky? Is THAT what you are saying?
>
Wow. Banana is a bigger fool than I thought. And I ALREADY thought he
was a substantial fool.
> A climatology is not a real science, fucktard.
Climatology has been a 'real science' for almost seven decades, you
silly shit.
'A climatology' eh? Let us all know when you figure out grammar.
> Show me where any of those frauds have
> changed the climate, you delusional fucktard.
It won't make much difference if I show you that the Earth's average
temperature has crept up since reliable records were kept in the late
1800s, or concentrations of CO² and Methane have gone up by 32% and
148% since the Industrial revolution and both are greenhouse gases
that trap heat. You're a GOP Cocksucker. And the world view of GOP
Cocksuckers can be summed up as "I'M all right, Jack. I've got MINE!"
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
> On Dec 11, 10:44 am, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [tard turds flushed]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
> of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
> find themselves trapped in a cage with a
> hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/
LOL! Fargo, you were absolutely correct. You predicted that he would
fargo116
wrote:
> "mrbawana2u" <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b0414af9-9b1a-4b6d...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Dec 11, 10:44 am, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> [tard turds flushed]
>
> > Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> > scampering hither and thither in the face of
> > predatory evidence that they and their pet
It really doesn't surprise me, Lamont, you should have seen all the
stuff this dork snipped from my posts when I challenged his silly
ideas about the Waco Case that happened almost 16 years ago.
Banana was trying to spread all this nonsense about Waco in the
newsgroup misc.activism.militia as fact;stuff like:
1. The FBI and the BATF murdered the Branch Davidians.
2. The FBI started the fire that burned the Branch Davidians.
3. The BATF arrived in and shot at the Branch Davidians from
helicopters.
4. The warrant that the BATF served on Burnin' Vernon and the Branch
Davidians was illegal.
5. The Branch Davidians shot the cops who came to arrest them in self-
defense.
Those are just off the top of my head. So I refuted them. Banana
exploded in fury. He was snippng stuff he couldn't answer all over the
place. The one question I remember that I NEVER got an answer to was
"How does all this entitle you to shoot the cops when they come to
arrest you?"
S. Olson
Lamont Cranston
news:34927c15-acbc-4462...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> On Dec 11, 10:15 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
>> "mrbawana2u" <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b0414af9-9b1a-4b6d...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> On Dec 11, 10:44 am, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> [tard turds flushed]
>>
>>> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
>>> scampering hither and thither in the face of
>>> predatory evidence that they and their pet
Maybe he's a cousin of Burnin' Vernon.
I M @ good guy
<Lamont....@Shadow.com> wrote:
>"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:3a818254-a2e7-4b98...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> On Dec 10, 12:45 pm, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So, no peer reviewed article published in any reputable scientific
>>>>> journal rejects the near unanimous conclusion that global warming
>>>>> is caused by human activities. Case closed.
>>>
>>>> If the case is so clearly on the side of the alarmists scientists
>>>> one can only wonder why they universally refuse to debate/discuss
>>>> the specifics of their understanding publicly.
>>>
>>> They don't. The topic has been discussed for decades.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>
>How does one become as stupid as you are? There have been thousands of
>peer reviewed articles addressing global warming published in many
>reputable scientific journals. Peer review is the evaluation of a work
>by other experts in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the
>quality of the work in that field. It is based on the concept that a
>larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more
>weaknesses and errors in a work and will be able to make a more
>impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group
>responsible for creating the work. Global warming has been discussed
>for decades in this very manner.
Why sure.
Its so hot, I'm freezing,
Its so hot, I'm sneezing,
and its getting hotter
all the time.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/CN/Temperature.html
A meeting for all AGW nuts should be held
in the purple area.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 5:19 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The climate scientists get grants from big oil,
you are confused.
Or is there a reason you want the names of
skeptics, do you want to sign their petition?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 6:11 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
What was statistical analysis like in the 1940s,
there was no "US Air Force" before 1947.
What did they research about climate, if it
was cold on tuesday and thursday it will snow
within 60 days?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 11, 8:29 am, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Who is claiming there are scientists not
receiving funding from big oil?
richp
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:15:24 -0800 (PST), richp
>
>
>
> <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 9:22 am, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> And now the EPA has its own “Climategate.” It is in the report by
> >> EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to
> >> EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Fo...
>
> >> The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other
> >> things -- that
> >> “As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis
> >> as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is
> >> currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it
> >> fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data.
> >> Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the
> >> hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible
> >> conclusion based on current data.”
>
> >> You can read the entire report here.http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
>
> >> The report was disclosed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) at a Tuesday
> >> afternoon press conference in which he said that the report was not
> >> considered by EPA in reaching its Monday determination.
>
>
> He also holds a degree in Physics. Physics is how the climatologists
> claim to obtain all of their numbers.
> You idiots sure do like to shoot your mouths off about shit you know a
> "little" about.
My cousin is a PHD physical chemist from Berkeley circa 1958 and he
says anthropogenic global warming is for real so fuck you and alan
carlin to hell
George
Well your language is certainly going to impress..
I can just see people lining up to be insulted into your belief...
NOT
mrbawana2u
> says anthropogenic global warming is for real so fuck you and alan
> carlin to hell
What else did he teach you, richpussytard.
Rhetorical. It's obvious.
They don't call you richpussytard for nothing.
fargo116
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:06:06 -0800 (PST), fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 10, 5:19 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> fargo116 wrote:
> >> > Who dissents who is not in the pay of Big Oil?
>
> >> What evidence do you have that any skeptic *is* in the pay of "big oil".
>
> >AGAIN, show me the name of a skeptic who is not in the pay of Big Oil.
>
> >S. Olson
>
> The climate scientists get grants from big oil,
> you are confused.
Oh really? Which grants are you talking about?
> Or is there a reason you want the names of
> skeptics, do you want to sign their petition?
No, I want the GOP Cocksuckers to cite their NAMES. See, the GOP
cocksuckers have this habit of telling great biiiiiiiiig whoppers and
I wanted to know jist who they were referring to so I could see if
they exist or see what their credentials are.
Got that now?
S. Olson
mrbawana2u
> [drool, drivel, snivel]
Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
scampering hither and thither in the face of
predatory evidence that they and their pet
theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind
mrbawana2u
> On Dec 11, 10:15 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> wrote:
fargo116
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:19:27 -0800 (PST), fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com>
precusor to the US Air Force, which was the air arm of the United
States Army, asked him then.
> What did they research about climate, if it
> was cold on tuesday and thursday it will snow
> within 60 days?- Hide quoted text -
No. that would be in the realm of meteorology, which deals with
WEATHER, not CLIMATE, although he did provide some weather statistics
he also provided ones on the climate in certain regions. If you check
the history of the Air Force for 1949--oh and there WAS a U.S. Air
Force by then--you may find out exactly what information Landsberg
provided.
Got that?
S. Olson
> - Show quoted text -
fargo116
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:04:07 -0800 (PST), fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com>
Ah, ah ah. Answer MY question first, then you will get the answer to
YOURS. That's how it works.
For the FIFTH time now, name me a scientist who is not in the pay of
Big Oil who is a skeptic of global warming because it is looking more
and more as if you do not HAVE one.
S. Olson
fargo116
> On Dec 11, 1:48 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 10:15 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@Shadow.com>
> > wrote:
> > [drool, drivel, snivel of two retards flushed]
>
> Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
> scampering hither and thither in the face of
> predatory evidence that they and their pet
> theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind
> of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly
> find themselves trapped in a cage with a
> hungry snake. The ensuing drama is instructive.
I already responded to this, Banana. Clipping off my response because
you're scared of it and simply repeating the same tired scream does
not make it true.
S.Olson
David Hartung
As she is not a public figure, her name will remain private. Her
position on the issue is not the issue. Does the fact that her Phd is in
engineering mean that her conclusions, findings and publications are not
valid?
I will give you a hint, if you say no, you need to discuss it with her
employer.
David Hartung
Just out of curiosity, what degree do you hold?
David Hartung
I'm still waiting for the names and supporting cites of those "skeptics"
who are in the pay of "big oil".
David Hartung
I will take that to mean that you are unable to provide the requested
information. Thank you and have a marry Christmas.