"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article 1dddf292-5d41-4cd1-8fe1-350529acec14
@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 20, 11:32 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" 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.
Agreed. But then I too agree with your hidden point, they don't
know
for sure. It is safe to say it is getting warmer or colder. But it
scares the hell out of me with so little real evidence either way
that
they are ready to go off and mess with the weather, setup CO2
recovery
plants and the like.

Sounds like a pied piper mentality of the herd of idiots who need
to
believe in something that is actually a good thing.

Because if it is warming, means mankind will be spared the hardship
of -35C in Florida.

Sounds like you know nothing about the science of global climate
change.

Well, I don't need 3 PhDs in but kissing to figure out if it isn't
getting
warmer, it must be getting cooler. Or visa versa depending on what
you
subscribe to. The probability of temperature staying constant in any
point on the planet in a given year is highly improbable.

But then good science isn't FUD based and does not generate $$$. All
you
have to do to see it is fraud is to see who benefits. In CO2s case,
governments raising taxes.

Remember it wasn't that long ago, maybe 15 years ago they said it was
cooling. Good science hasn't changed that much in just 15 years on
this
planet anyways.

I question if it is warming, my eyes tell me in the last 5 years it
hasn't. Have utility bills to show it and I notice it. Second, if it
is
warming, is it really something to be concerned about? I would be
more
worried about global cooling, as nothing animal like lives on
glaciers.
Oh, they might traverse one, but live on a glacier the size of North
America presents a logitstical problem.

It is all about selling taxes to tax-slaves. All motives point to
greed,
junk science, fraud and government taxation.

Go ahead, take cheap shots with BS, if it makes you feal good. After
all,
what you believe in is now in question as just another FAD of FUD to
manage the herds for money.

How about in "and" kissing? How about just one PhD? How about 1/2
brain?

I think you should immediately stop paying taxes.

--
Nom=de=Plume

For some indication of how they have tortured the data to make it
conform to warming theory, look at this blog about temps at Darwin in
Oz:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...er/#more-14358

I just don't understand why half the country would rather believe
scientists who have been proved to be frauds, instead of ones who
haven't.. Drives me nuts...


Because they haven't. There were only a few involved in the email situation,
and even those emails were cherry-picked.

--
Nom=de=Plume