 willhelm says: You will never see science from the global warming idiots. The scientists, almost all of them, know it is a bunch of bunk. The select few are the ones selected to present an IPCC media report, which is one of the most dishonest reports in history. By the way, Masbury, the selct few includes the IPCC, who say in their report: IPCC, 2001, pg 94, which has never been amended or retracted. paraphrase: There has been no detected human signature on recent warming trends..( this was 2001 before the cooling trend had come into focus);;the recent warming could be natural.. There has never been a mechanism that supports a human signature in climate change. Recent studies, some recently posted here, continue to support that the models are fantasy. There has been NO cooling on other solar system bodies, yet there is recent warming detected on many of them. The fact is that if you believe in anthropogenic global warming you are not intelligent and open minded. You are simply a b — Comment removed by clipper — The only thing you point out, JK, is that you are sociologist. What did August Comte, father of Sociology, say about Sociology? This is what he says: “the entire systematisation of human life on the basis of the preponderance of the heart over the intellect.”If you want to make an argument, JK, then you are welcome. If you want to make a case about the logic I apply, then you are welcome. If you want to call me a moron, you are welcome. Propaganda, arbitrary links with lying accusations are not welcomed. You know that. Make the case for or against global warming. Deal with the facts. I did no such thing as you suggest. Also, I don't care how many times you tell me a lie. It is still BS. Be a mensch. Let readers look at the original source, and let them make up their minds about who is propagandizing and/or lying about what the IPCC says. [1] Well, I don't mind you posting as link. None of the idiots you think care about your link have no clue what the IPCC says. The IPCC reports are mostly good science. It is the Summary for Policy Makers that is a load of crap and if anyone cares about reading the IPCC, it would be easy for them to do. The Summary for Policy Makers was written by select politicians and resembles very little the actual IPCC reports and that is what is bantered about the press for the useful idiots to soak up. IPCC: 2002, p 347 Interaction between sinks and sources are complex and not well understood. Human emissions of CO2 are less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon. 70% of green house gas in ocean ... IPCC, 2001a, p97: The fact that the gloabl mean temperature has increased since the late 19 Century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthopogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time scales, so the observed change may be natural. and let them make up their minds about who is propagandizing and/or lying about what the IPCC says.there is an update and let them make up their minds about who is propagandizing and/or lying about what the IPCC says.Yep...OK, JK, answer your own question. I documented what the IPCC said verbatim. You said I misrepresented. Here you have IPCC lead author affiming in 2009 the same idea presented in IPCC, 2001. which was: IPCC, 2001a, p97: The fact that the gloabl mean temperature hasJK, Please tell us who is propagandizing a... |
View the Top Clips from July 16, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
