31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

[HAL 9000 96]

Your scientific selectiveness tells us how open you are! To new ideas.

Its called reading and being critical of the "evidence." Something new to some around here.

So can you tell me what the "IDEAL" temperature of the EARTH should be? Surely your "books" that you've read have told you! The copyights on these "BOOKS " that your facts come from, are the dates recent? Who are the authors of these all mighty works?

Ideal? ####### is that?

How about non-detrimental to NORMAL plant physiology and non-detrimental to overall climate patterns AS A RESULT OF ARTIFICIAL FACTORS.

Easy enough to read.

A number you want?

Silly me, I thought we had natural and seasonal temperature variations.

There you go! You coulda left the rest of the BS out. Now go back to watchin the grass grow. Tell me how much vegetation just died in the last five minutes.

Just the one you grazed on apparently for not reading the capitalized BS... let me get you a trophy...

Feel free to accumulate them for your collection.

[Sister Fracas 5]

oh yay... another yawn-o-fest...

[HAL 9000 96]

oh yay... another yawn-o-fest...

You'd figure most folks could read what was actually written the first time thread around.

[Sister Fracas 5]

oh yay... another yawn-o-fest...

You'd figure most folks could read what was actually written the first time thread around.

the first thread???? sheesh, there have been twelvty-five since then.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Summary of Findings:

The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be. Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles.

Line by line analysis of the SPM reveals that all of the science that cuts against the theory of human interference with climate has been systematically omitted. In some cases the leading arguments against human interference are actually touched on, but without being revealed or discussed. In other cases the evidence against human interference is simply ignored. Because of these strategic omissions, the SPM voices a degree of certainty that is entirely false.

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers" -- including the press and the public -- who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. This deliberate distortion can only be explained by the fact that the UN IPCC is part of an advocacy process, organized by the United Nations Environment Program and supporting the Kyoto Protocol.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers is available at: http://www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/ipcc/wg1/

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Edited June 3, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[HAL 9000 96]

oh yay... another yawn-o-fest...

You'd figure most folks could read what was actually written the first time thread around.

the first thread???? sheesh, there have been twelvty-five since then.

Some are unfortunately in denial. I don't mind correcting faulty logic. Doesn't make me think less of the posters as people capable of learning something, with very, very, very rare exceptions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your link doesn't work BTW.

But there's a whole section on climate change on the UK Met office website. They're hardly throwing climate change out the door. Far from it in fact.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

[HAL 9000 96]

Ohhhhhhhhhh...

[Marilyn. 340]

oh yay... another yawn-o-fest...

You'd figure most folks could read what was actually written the first time thread around.

the first thread???? sheesh, there have been twelvty-five since then.

Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

deja vu anyone? ...lol

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The complexities of our existense and our planet go far beyond what any human will ever understand. For ANYONE to profess otherwise is truly a fool indeed.

A PHD in front of a name only means they read the books required. This doesnt include political leanings, personal attitudes and bias, all come into play before we even see anything. The fact that there is debate about it, only proves one thing. No one knows for sure. Except Mavivaro of course.

[Marilyn. 340]

but the thing is we have to be having some effect on the planet with all the factories and cars etc. spewing all that ####### into the atmosphere.. they didn't have all that hundreds of years ago....

you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that...

Edited June 3, 2008 by Marilyn!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The complexities of our existense and our planet go far beyond what any human will ever understand. For ANYONE to profess otherwise is truly a fool indeed.

A PHD in front of a name only means they read the books required. This doesnt include political leanings, personal attitudes and bias, all come into play before we even see anything. The fact that there is debate about it, only proves one thing. No one knows for sure. Except Mavivaro of course.

Totally O/T - but would you refute a diagnosis from a medical doctor on the basis that you don't like his/her politics?

Noone is saying we have all the answers, least of all the scientists. Its a given that climate science (like any other scientific field) isn't fully understood and is being refined all the time.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

but the thing is we have to be having some effect on the planet with all the factories and cars etc. spewing all that ####### into the atmosphere.. they didn't have all that hundreds of years ago....

you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that...

Marilyn, part of the hype about all this is about making you feel guilty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

but the thing is we have to be having some effect on the planet with all the factories and cars etc. spewing all that ####### into the atmosphere.. they didn't have all that hundreds of years ago....

you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that...

Not to mention industrial scale deforestation. Human activities (specifically intensive agriculture) have been shown to cause desertification of massive areas of land (i.e. the dustbowl in the 1930's). This isn't really any more implausible than that.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The complexities of our existense and our planet go far beyond what any human will ever understand. For ANYONE to profess otherwise is truly a fool indeed.

A PHD in front of a name only means they read the books required. This doesnt include political leanings, personal attitudes and bias, all come into play before we even see anything. The fact that there is debate about it, only proves one thing. No one knows for sure. Except Mavivaro of course.

Totally O/T - but would you refute a diagnosis from a medical doctor on the basis that you don't like his/her politics?

Noone is saying we have all the answers, least of all the scientists. Its a given that climate science (like any other scientific field) isn't fully understood and is being refined all the time.

Bad analogy! Six.