"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 4:50 pm, Geoduck wrote:
On 12/20/09 4:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Bill wrote in message
om...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
Often I'm accused of "avoiding" truth when it comes to AGW. I'm the
"creationist" in a sense that I don't understand the highly complex
nature of climate anatomy. I'm picking on "details". I'm a
corporate
schill. I don't understand "peer review" (even though I have "peer
reviewed" over 600 math texts, dissertations and master's thesis in
my
life). Yada, yada, yada.

Ok - without getting into the politics, I want Loogy and the other
AGW
types to defend this.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=62e1c98...

Remember - this is your side - this is how you are presenting your
information. This describes what happens when one of the most
widely
used sources of information is controlled and massaged and only one
side of the "science" is presented.

Go ahead - defend this.

I'll wait.

Okay. Just because SOME (a very small percentage) tried to cook some
books does in no way shape nor form prove whether or not global
warming is or isn't occuring.

And why we need 100% rational hard real scientists to look at the
issue
without the policitical money grabing schemes. Currently it is about
money, money greed. Carbon tax, carbon credits and extortion. That
isn't science, that is political greed and nanny state BS.

Even if it is warming, is that so bad? Equatorial zones have
evaporation to keep temperatures moderate, but the polar areas would
get
most of the warming. Is that so bad you can golf or go boating in
norther US or Canada in January?

Hell, that is green, as more green further north would not hurt
mankind.
Be it golf green or green in your pocket. My utility bill would even
become more moderate and less carbon to heat my home at -35C.

Eco nuts are "sky is falling" nut balls following the government love
in
for excuses for more taxes. Someone wise once said to me, always
follow
the money for your answers. Well the green thing is fostered by
government greed for taxation, be it carbon taxes or carbon credits
it
is about taking our money for them to waste on GM/Bank/Government
like
ponzi schemes. In the mean time, more green lawns and forrests will
absorb more carbon. Nature has a unique way of balancing the Earth
and
eco freeks just don't want to admit that hard fact of reality.

Good grief... well, you've pretty much summed up the loonieness of the
deniers. Good for you!

--
Nom=de=Plume

You just accentuated the loonieness of the gullible.

Yeah, I guess when someone talks science, it seems like magic to you...

It's sorta interesting that we have several right-wingers in here who
*claim* to be scientists, but apparently have no ability to apply the
thought processes they learned in other fields to the ones usually
discussed here. I wouldn't call McKee a scientist of any sort,
though...his last work experience was rounding up illegals at shape-ups
to work on home improvement projects.

The surface temps they show are so heavily contaminated by urban heat
island effects as to be useless. The Russians say the Siberian data
was cherry picked to show increase where none existed thus the surface
temp data cannot even be used. We also know that they cherry picked
the data from Australia to show an increase that is not shown by all
the rest of the data. We also know they used a single station at 67
degrees south on the Antarctic Peninsula for ALL of Antarctica
although the station had been heavily altered giving a huge increase
in temp.
Thus, THERE IS NO DATA SHOWING AGW.


Reply: You're a joke.

--
Nom=de=Plume