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.