Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

[CaptnKirk]

Link to Article

They don't even think that they have to give out facts and details, only what they choose.

 

[IamDavid]

I used to worry about the environment. I used to care. Then I realized all the greenies are so nuts I can't believe a word they say. Maybe if groups like Greenpeace didn't run the show more people would care again. Until then it don't matter what the EPA or anyone else says, its all background noise..

 

[Macro2]

When the sea level rises their will be new waterfront property and the rich living on it NOW will be SOL... Is this such a bad thing? HEHE

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Macro2
When the sea level rises their will be new waterfront property and the rich living on it NOW will be SOL... Is this such a bad thing? HEHE

That would suck cause then Babs huge beach-front home would be swept into the ocean...

I'm praying for global warming..

 

[tcsenter]

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I think environmental issues are important, but I can't stand the intensity of most environmental groups. There isn't enough data to convince me that most warming patterns aren't part of Earth's natural cycles. I don't think it is a dire emergency, but it is defenitely an issue. I would love to be driving a hydrogen car, or a gas/electric hybrid if I could afford one right now. I think most environmental legislation can get too restricting though and then it kicks us in the @ss some how. Take for instance the Natural Gas prices skyrocketing because of the push to move from Coal to Natural Gas power plants. Unfortunately the Natural Gas drilling hasn't been supported enough to make this move and now we're going to be faced with fat prices for the next couple of years. We're sitting on plenty of deposits we just need to loosen regulations to get to it.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

 

[Vadatajs]

It's clear this administration has problems with the truth.

 

[Alistar7]

I have no issue with Iraq, but Bush won't get my vote either way.

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

There have been a number of other scientists refuting "Global Warming" as well. Some researchers from one of the big universities in Great Britain also presented plausible evidence contradicting "Global Warming". I'm not sure if anyone has yet come up with something conclusive as the debate nevertheless rages on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all



CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all
CkG

80 Bil is expensive?Dubya spent 60 Bil to fight a war against a country that was no threat to us, but 80 Bil is too much to address the real threat to lifes of millions of Americans, which is they can't afford the basic medical care that could potentially save millions of lives. Shows where your priorities lie.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all
CkG

80 Bil is expensive?Dubya spent 60 Bil to fight a war against a country that was no threat to us, but 80 Bil is too much to address the real threat to lifes of millions of Americans, which is they can't afford the basic medical care that could potentially save millions of lives. Shows where your priorities lie.

PER YEAR!!! (and 80B was the cheap plan )

Sure does show where my priorities lie. I don't need to pay for some old fart's healthcare - nor should I pay for Joe deadbeat down the street.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all
CkG

80 Bil is expensive?Dubya spent 60 Bil to fight a war against a country that was no threat to us, but 80 Bil is too much to address the real threat to lifes of millions of Americans, which is they can't afford the basic medical care that could potentially save millions of lives. Shows where your priorities lie.

PER YEAR!!! (and 80B was the cheap plan )

Sure does show where my priorities lie. I don't need to pay for some old fart's healthcare - nor should I pay for Joe deadbeat down the street.

CkG

But you do want to pay for a war against a country that is not a threat to us. That's so nice of GOP to blow 60 Bil to protect Americans from a nonexistent threat, but completely ignore the real threat to life and health of millions of Americans. It must be because they really care.
/edit. Posted before end of quote

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all
CkG

80 Bil is expensive?Dubya spent 60 Bil to fight a war against a country that was no threat to us, but 80 Bil is too much to address the real threat to lifes of millions of Americans, which is they can't afford the basic medical care that could potentially save millions of lives. Shows where your priorities lie.

PER YEAR!!! (and 80B was the cheap plan )

Sure does show where my priorities lie. I don't need to pay for some old fart's healthcare - nor should I pay for Joe deadbeat down the street.

CkG

But you do want to pay for a war against a country that is not a threat to us. That's so nice of GOP to blow 60 Bil to protect Americans from a nonexistent threat, but completely ignore the real threat to life and health of millions of Americans. It must be because they really care.
/edit. Posted before end of quote

I think we need a different thread for our "discussion" ST

To keep it on-topic - "Hugging a tree a day keeps the termites happy"

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

It is nice that you dismiss their opionion just because you dont agree with them.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all
CkG

80 Bil is expensive?Dubya spent 60 Bil to fight a war against a country that was no threat to us, but 80 Bil is too much to address the real threat to lifes of millions of Americans, which is they can't afford the basic medical care that could potentially save millions of lives. Shows where your priorities lie.

PER YEAR!!! (and 80B was the cheap plan )

Sure does show where my priorities lie. I don't need to pay for some old fart's healthcare - nor should I pay for Joe deadbeat down the street.

CkG

But you do want to pay for a war against a country that is not a threat to us. That's so nice of GOP to blow 60 Bil to protect Americans from a nonexistent threat, but completely ignore the real threat to life and health of millions of Americans. It must be because they really care.
/edit. Posted before end of quote

I think we need a different thread for our "discussion" ST

To keep it on-topic - "Hugging a tree a day keeps the termites happy"

CkG

I have no problem with the environment. I like Nor-Cal's environment, and hope it stays that way while I am here.
I think being anti-environment just because you don't like environmentalists is lame.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the environment. I like Nor-Cal's environment, and hope it stays that way while I am here.
I think being anti-environment just because you don't like environmentalists is lame.

Yes it is. I am NOT "anti-environmentalist", infact I would support common sense legislation protecting the environment, but too many wackos have made it seem like a black or white issue

Oh, and just an observation. So being "anti-Republican" just because you don't like Bush isn't lame? (I know the opposite could be claimed too )

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

It is nice that you dismiss their opionion just because you dont agree with them.

Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

It is nice that you dismiss their opionion just because you dont agree with them.

Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

Well looking at the site there are lots of PhDs and a few MDs. There are lots of folk without degrees listed, but that does not mean they are uneducated. This is your attempt to poison this well that disagrees with you.


It is not hard to find scientist with differing opinions on global warming. Yet, it seems to environuts there is only one valid opinion and theory on the matter.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the environment. I like Nor-Cal's environment, and hope it stays that way while I am here.
I think being anti-environment just because you don't like environmentalists is lame.

Yes it is. I am NOT "anti-environmentalist", infact I would support common sense legislation protecting the environment, but too many wackos have made it seem like a black or white issue

Oh, and just an observation. So being "anti-Republican" just because you don't like Bush isn't lame? (I know the opposite could be claimed too )

CkG

I was anti-republican long before Bush was even in the picture. Bush just reinforced my anti-Republicanism.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

Well looking at the site there are lots of PhDs and a few MDs. There are lots of folk without degrees listed, but that does not mean they are uneducated. This is your attempt to poison this well that disagrees with you.

Come on, you're smarter than that. There's nothing magical about having an advanced degree. As you understand full well, having a doctorate in English or quantum physics or medicine is irrelevant to one's qualifications in global environmental issues. If the list is 17,000 people with no selectivity based on environment, then it could just as well be a phone book.

If you want to support your point, find qualified environmental scientists who discount global warming.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

Well looking at the site there are lots of PhDs and a few MDs. There are lots of folk without degrees listed, but that does not mean they are uneducated. This is your attempt to poison this well that disagrees with you.

Come on, you're smarter than that. There's nothing magical about having an advanced degree. As you understand full well, having a doctorate in English or quantum physics or medicine is irrelevant to one's qualifications in global environmental issues. If the list is 17,000 people with no selectivity based on environment, then it could just as well be a phone book.

If you want to support your point, find qualified environmental scientists who discount global warming.

They exist and I dont try to claim only 1 theory exists on the causes of global warming.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

It is nice that you dismiss their opionion just because you dont agree with them.

Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

Well looking at the site there are lots of PhDs and a few MDs. There are lots of folk without degrees listed, but that does not mean they are uneducated. This is your attempt to poison this well that disagrees with you.


It is not hard to find scientist with differing opinions on global warming. Yet, it seems to environuts there is only one valid opinion and theory on the matter.

They are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but when I say uneducated I mean uneducated about global warming and the climate processes behind it. They are padding their stats with people who don't know squat about climate and atmospheric science.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
They exist and I dont try to claim only 1 theory exists on the causes of global warming.

That's cool. Just don't try to puff up your position by pointing to 17,000 people whose opinions are no better informed than any random person you stop on the street.

(Yes, tcsenter posted the link, but you criticized others for dismissing it -- correctly -- as irrelevant.)