Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:35:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*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.


Exactly. In particular when 50% of the "scientists" are people nobody
who study climatology have ever heard of.

Just wait until they figure out that it's really cosmic rays and lack
of solar output to deflect them that's causing all the ruckus.


http://www.jbs.org/node/6266

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been allowed to see the underlying data, only copies of *unpublished*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?

On Nov 17, 4:52 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:01:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
UN Panel: Climate Change Accelerating

That's all you needed to know about this one.

Truth, veracity and unassailable "facts".

Well, then, show me some "facts" that says that the millions of pounds
of pollutants spewed into the air every single day is having no affect
on the planet.............I'm expecting crickets...

wrote in message
...
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?


I missed in the articles where it said man made CO2 was more than natural
sources- can you point me to it?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:28:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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?

More reasons to go nuclear.

Your first site has three different articles claiming the 'most
pollutants'. Who finally won the contest?

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...





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-brie...environment/ai...

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

I missed in the articles where it said man made CO2 was more than natural
sources- can you point me to it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

wrote in message
...

On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???


We should all keep an open mind. I posted the link to this before, but
here's part one again.
Pretty convincing argument and worth watching/listening to ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Eisboch

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 11:21 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 19, 9:06 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

Yeah, I'll teach you to read just as soon as you point me to the
source that verifies that naturally occuring CO2 is greater than man
made.

"In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as
carbon
dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere,
and
another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the
atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

Hmmm, one man's OPINION makes it fact to you???

How many do you require?

Did you know termites alone produce more carbon dioxide then all the fossil
fuels burned in the whole world in a year ?