On Nov 17, 1:04 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 11:49 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:FEE%i.186$e35.124@trnddc08...
Thinking people would like to see the data. The IPCC releases summary,
after summary, but no hard data.
One has to wonder why?

This man was selected by the IPCC to act as a reviewer and even he
hasn't
been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*
studies used be the IPCC to form their "consensus"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

"What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the
data used or the supporting calculations?"

Scientists don't draw conclusions by "consensus". At least they
shouldn't.

Eisboch

"The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning
countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its
conclusions."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The REPORT, not the data.

Do you think it's solid science for a group of scientists and countries to
accept a report where the underlying scientific data is not released, not
even the peer reviewers?

Anyone who thinks that emitting millions of
tons of CO2, heavy metals, thousands of different compounds, etc. into
the air every day isn't having an adverse affect on the Earth is a
moron.

How do you propose we stop the number 1 polluter (the Earth) from emitting
these pollutants?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's where the idiots always come up with that bull****. The earth
itself can take care of it's self. Everything in balance, do you
understand what balance is? Besides, the earth is not the #1
polluter.

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/...79988?&pbl=222

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/domestic-policy/environment/air-pollution/air-pollution-$366647.htm

But then again, you wouldn't let facts get in the way of your crap,
huh?