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...d-5078af9cb409

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.

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.

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.


It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some
troublesome level.

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...d-5078af9cb409

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.

Defend what? Junk Science or science for profit? Can't do that.

As a boater, I welcome warming if in fact they are right, and I have
reasons to doubt they are right. But lets say in January I go bass
fishing in Trout Lake in January, or all of Minnesota, Michigan or
Wisconsin, or even north into Ontario and Manitoba is that so bad?

Even the costs of boating would go down as the docks would be used for
12 months and not 4 months. Allowing operators to make boating more
affordable. And I would rather spend my money on boating than heat for
the home.

I for one hope they are right that is it warming, I view it good for all
boaters as a boat does not work well on a 12" of solid ice. And the
fish grow very slow in the cold. With warmer winters natural fishery
production goes right up. Longer summers give them lots of food so we
can catch them and have a great time doing it. And bigger fish too!

So what Darwinian disease do the global warmists have that they would
rather see us hit the ice age were not much of anything lives? Because
if your not warming, you be getting colder. So I fail to see the locic
of eco freeks.

On Dec 20, 8:59*am, 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.

So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute
to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing.
They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided
that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they
conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove
all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got
$24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA
got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud.

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.

On 12/20/09 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...d-5078af9cb409

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.

Find another hobby, tom-tom. You're only convincing yourself and
scumbags like your boy herring.

On 12/20/09 10:58 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:59 am, 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.

So, they cherry picked tide data to show sea level rise they attribute
to global warming when the record from tide guages shows nothing.
They used tree ring data to show temps in the distant past but decided
that when thye do not show rise since 1960 they ignore the data, they
conspire to prevent any anti-agw publications, they conspire to remove
all anti-agw views from wiki. Their motive, money. East Anglia got
$24 million for their "climate research" and researchers in the USA
got huge sums too. This is not science, it is pure fraud.


You, tom and the other flatlanders are just soooooo convincing.
Especially you.

On Dec 20, 10:54*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
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.

It's not whether it's occurring or not, it's whether it will reach some
troublesome level.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the article does nothing to answer that question.

On Dec 20, 8:59*am, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hellooooooo???