UN Climate Chief: Skeptics should rub asbestos in their face.

[Noobtastic]

The UN is a joke.

 

[Moonbeam]

You make a fool of yourself when it doesn't serve your purpose as well.. ^_^

Sure, but that is different. Like you, when I do that, I'm completely unaware of the fact.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/climate-chief-critics-rub-faces-asbestos/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/260c9290-10d7-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html

Second link is where Fox is quoting from, but it looks like a pay site.



WTF is wrong with this guy?

So if you are just SKEPTICAL of MMGW, he wants you to basically get cancer and die. Is this what mainstream progressives have become these days? I realize you guys are big on the 'ends justify the means' thing.. but seriously.. if you are unsure and question their work, you should die or get a horrible disease?

How he goes from smoker and cancer to asbestos and talcum power I am not sure. But this guy is a certified lunatic. He needs to be removed from his position IMMEDIATELY.

How can we seriously take the work of someone like this seriously? This is bordering on lets load all the jews into a gas chamber type of thought pattern.

Straining at gnats again. Please express your faux outrage somewhere else.

 

[Moonbeam]

When it comes to misogyny, racism, fear and stupidity FNE cannot BE BEAT!

He is, after all, a classical conservative and passionate of the Christian values.

It's what they do.

Look Corn, i respect you and all that sheit, well actually, i've come to respect you less and less because of all this bullsheit but still, i respect you.

Perhaps you should be a tad more careful about who you defend though, FNE is an obvious ideological troll, there is no doubt what so ever about that.

As if that wasn't enough, he trolls and leaves when his arguments don't hold up, which makes him leave pretty much every single thread he has ever participated in.

Ideology doesn't really matter when the actions don't reflect what your ideology stands for but some will defend the ideology before the actions again and again and again and again, sometimes even AFTER being proven wrong.

I'm not a nutter, i know fully well that the US will do what the US will do and we ALL know that GW started the bailouts and if he had had the time he'd do what Obama has done.

It's stupid though, IME giving clearance check to do whatever will lead to more abuse.

I'm awaiting a new thing now so if i dissapear before a reply is given..

Corn doesn't give a shit about FNE. He was only seeking more nourishment from me. The calloused little rascal has attached himself to my toe and shoots out pain when rubbed wrong.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh the outrage.

Perhaps he's a little tired of being labeled a fraud and a liar who only wants research funding.
You know having your professional reputation sullied on a daily basis by unqualified morons on the internet might get under your skin after a while.

Buck up OP, he didn't drown your cat, stop crying.

Perhaps he should stop releasing reports about ice caps melting that have dates that are 300 years off and are based on the observations of mountain climbers and a paper written by a college student.

 

[Ozoned]

Perhaps he should stop releasing reports about ice caps melting that have dates that are 300 years off and are based on the observations of mountain climbers and a paper written by a college student.

What else would you expect from an Economist

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I've read countless articles made by the milk industry of the US who say that the phyto estrogens of soy are bad and yet i have not seen one single study that shows ANY kind of interactions, if they did, then whoopdefuckingdooo, get your girfriend to drink soy milk, it's healthy AND as good as birth control!

That is just to prove a point, anyone who is employed by a company will produce findings that are favorable to that company.

That is why research should never be funded by anyone who stands to gain from it one way or another.

Now, some people obviously think that NASA is useless, producing the same output of warnings about global warning year after year, hell, they were the first to even produce certain findings and minted the expression global warming (this is over 30 years ago for all you omg new produced wrong science must put on tinfoil hat people).

Thing is, data is data, and it doesn't matter WHAT data you rely on, all of it shows the same prognosis AND the same cause. There is nothing to debate here.

There are no Jesus horses and the ice cores are not manufactured by Obama to decieve the world and ... well i don't know what he would stand to gain from it but i do know that even conservative estimates are being trumphed by actual data.

 

[Atreus21]

In my days of debating Holocaust deniers who claimed that gassing with Zyclon-B was scientifically impossible, on occasion I suggested to them that the best way to test this was for them to step into a sealed room and open a can of Zyclon-B. I don't think this guy was being any more literally serious than I was. I wasn't being literally serious of course, yet I also wasn't trying to be funny, at least not in a "funny ha ha" sort of way.

- wolf

You've debated Holocaust deniers?

WARNING: THREADJACK INBOUND.

 

[BeauJangles]

We barely even hear about the Swine Flu anymore and that was supposed to wipe us all out.

Swine Flu has killed more than 10,000 people in this country and made nearly 30 times that number sick.

 

[Babbles]

That is why research should never be funded by anyone who stands to gain from it one way or another.

Given that effectively all of "us" benefit from research one way or another you are basically advocating the cessation of any and all future research. I suppose we could save some money in the short-term by dismantling all of our research universities, but I got a feeling that would come back and bite us in the ass.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Given that effectively all of "us" benefit from research one way or another you are basically advocating the cessation of any and all future research. I suppose we could save some money in the short-term by dismantling all of our research universities, but I got a feeling that would come back and bite us in the ass.

I don't appreciate you using a reply in which you know the meaning very well and then building on it.

But if you can't make your own arguments then ok, feel free to misrepresent mine anytime.

 

[Babbles]

I don't appreciate you using a reply in which you know the meaning very well and then building on it.

But if you can't make your own arguments then ok, feel free to misrepresent mine anytime.

I do not know the meaning of what you are trying to say and I do not see where I misrepresented anything. You stated:

That is why research should never be funded by anyone who stands to gain from it one way or another.

Then please enlighten us on how research will be conducted. Obviously this precludes pharma, industrial, and agrichemical corporations from funding their respective research since they will all gain from it. Government entities (e.g. US FDA, OECD) gain from commercialization of products within their jurisdiction (not to mention the political captial) from funding such research, which will trickle back down to the originators. Current industry supports a great deal of university research that provides original research opportunities for the university, but it also trickles back to the private sector where they may "gain from it one way or another."

So what did I misrepresent here? How exactly do you propose research get funded and carried out?

Care if I continue?

How about:

That is just to prove a point, anyone who is employed by a company will produce findings that are favorable to that company.

Yes, of course they will produce results that are favorable, why in the hell would somebody spend time and money if they expect to get consistently get results that they would not normally expect? Anyhow I believe you are trying to imply that they will produce only favorable results.

This is very far from the truth. Granted there are rare instances of research companies trying to hide what they can, but the truth is when new products are brought to market the findings are disclosed as part of the public record. This is true in the U.S. as well as OECD nations who basically adopted US regulatory protocols.

Just Google up how many pharma companies cease preclinical and clinical research projects because the data were not favorable. Hell of all the research that pharma does, something like less than 1% ever ends up going to market. If the data was always favorable that return on investment would hover around 100%.

An additional example is that DuPont paid for some environmental testing and got slammed with something called PFOA showing up all over the place. That sure as shit wasn't favorable for them.

Finally:

Thing is, data is data, and it doesn't matter WHAT data you rely on, all of it shows the same prognosis AND the same cause. There is nothing to debate here.

I assume you are talking about global warming data, but you did not reference it specifically. Regardless, this is such a naive statement it is laughable. It does matter what data you look at, and how it is manipulated. There is no clear "prognosis" of anything, not to mention one "same cause." Frankly what you said doesn't even make sense and appears to be a statement developed from scientific illiteracy.

Here's the deal: I spent nearly ten years of my life working in the scientific industry supporting various research and analytical studies. When I read comments like yours about research funding it drives me nuts because it does imply this sort of mysticism that research can just come out of a black box and be perfect. That data can always be interpreted one way, and so forth. I think it is representative of a misunderstanding how research in the industry is performed.

 

[sandorski]

He needs to wake up and see the most recent research and numbers. We aren't warming up anymore. Haven't for a couple years now. We're getting colder. The 400 thousand square mile INCREASE of polar ice in the last couple years is just one example.

Fail

 

[Jaskalas]

There are no Jesus horses and the ice cores are not manufactured by Obama to decieve the world and ... well i don't know what he would stand to gain from it but i do know that even conservative estimates are being trumphed by actual data.

He would stand to gain ice cores that would prove AGW as opposed to the current ones that disprove it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Fail

No, you fail.

Do you just blindly accept what your party leaders tell you, or do you ever check things out for yourself?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cGXrrRhL

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

[sandorski]

No, you fail.

Do you just blindly accept what your party leaders tell you, or do you ever check things out for yourself?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cGXrrRhL

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Sorry, still Fail. The Ice is thinning and decreasing.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Sorry, still Fail. The Ice is thinning and decreasing.

lol you didn't read did you

That or you're just trolling on purpose.

 

[sandorski]

lol you didn't read did you

That or you're just trolling on purpose.

What's to read. For the first time in known History there are ships staying in the Arctic right through the Winter. In times past they had to leave. This is a Fact, not some article in a Newspaper.

 

[Babbles]

What's to read. For the first time in known History there are ships staying in the Arctic right through the Winter. In times past they had to leave. This is a Fact, not some article in a Newspaper.

I think you have to put things like that in context. How long have people had the technology to sail into the arctic when compared to the lifespan of the Earth (or even since humans have been around)? I don't doubt the story you are alluding to, but that should in no way whatsoever be any meaningful piece of data to infer anything else.

 

[sandorski]

I think you have to put things like that in context. How long have people had the technology to sail into the arctic when compared to the lifespan of the Earth (or even since humans have been around)? I don't doubt the story you are alluding to, but that should in no way whatsoever be any meaningful piece of data to infer anything else.

It clearly shows that the Ice is thinning/shrinking

 

[Babbles]

It clearly shows that the Ice is thinning/shrinking

Sure, that ice may be thinning. The question is what does that mean and in what context? What can you actually infer from that with any degree of confidence?

 

[BoberFett]

Who thinks asbestos should be used as talcum powder? Sounds like this guy is a kook and shouldn't be in any position of authority, unless you count the register at Taco Bell as a position of authority. He could, after all, deny someone their request for extra lettuce.

 

[sandorski]

Sure, that ice may be thinning. The question is what does that mean and in what context? What can you actually infer from that with any degree of confidence?

It's Warming. Duh, don't just have that bit of evidence to confirm it though.

 

[monovillage]

A story about Pachauri and another falsification in the IPCC 07 AR4. Besides the glacier misinformation, the storm damage lies, the rain forest lies, the inclusion of non peer reviewed "articles" by Greepeace and the World Wildlife Fund etc... this one is about Africa and how global warming will starve the people that depend on rainfall for their crops and again it's a lie. Here's 2 stories covering the same thing, the EU one references the Times, but has more links to how Pachauri used the false story in a number of speeches over the years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

another article about it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...sh-scientist-says-ipcc-is-losing-credibility/

 

[Corn]

Perhaps you should be a tad more careful about who you defend though, FNE is an obvious ideological troll, there is no doubt what so ever about that.

Stating that FNE came in a close 2nd place in a race to stupidity is not a very solid or passionate defense of that dude........just sayin'.