On 12/20/09 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.

Define "troublesome."

I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an
anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards.

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
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.


Exactly. And, the "trick" term in scientific circles doesn't mean fraud. It
can really be equated with a "technique" of dealing with data.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.

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

Loogypicker wrote:
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.

Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer.

Can you answer the question?

Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 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.

Define "troublesome."

I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an
anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards.


Smarter people than me can't define "troublesome" as it pertains to
global warming.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Loogypicker wrote:
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.

Of course it doesn't, nobody has that answer.

Can you answer the question?


Untrue. It can be and has been answered. Adverse climate change is
happening. It will get worse. We are a significant contributor. We can
prevent things from spiraling out of control.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Harry wrote:
On 12/20/09 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.

Define "troublesome."

I find it damned funny that academic committees anywhere have an
anti-science shill like tom-tom on peer review boards.


Smarter people than me can't define "troublesome" as it pertains to global
warming.


They can and they did.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Dec 20, 1:25*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Loogypicker" wrote in message

...
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.

Exactly. And, the "trick" term in scientific circles doesn't mean fraud. It
can really be equated with a "technique" of dealing with data.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And usually IS used as a term for technique. BUT, it's all they have,
they need something.

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.
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!

So you think the sky is falling and the end of the world is near....

You take scifi and FUD far too seriously.

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.