This guy is a research analyst who does the most wonkish job of slamming global warming fears thus far. This lecture is from 2008. About one hour long.
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
This guy is a research analyst who does the most wonkish job of slamming global warming fears thus far. This lecture is from 2008. About one hour long.
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 24906 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Soon the warming scam will be filed away as not even newsworthy.
A lecture? From someone who pretends to be an expert? Oh wait. He qualified that he doesn’t know anything at the beginning.
I too would like to see someone tell us any reputable, scientific, professional organization that still denies climate change being aggravated by the addition of CO in our atmosphere.
For all those global warming denialists:
Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense in Scientific American
50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural:
http://newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Can’t wait to read the other 50. Good sound exchange going on here. A versus “Not A.” Very convincing.
Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap
You Tube video…
http://tinyurl.com/yjxwn6h
Entertaining. But I was surprised that the professor admitted that they inserted “thermometer” temperatures into tree ring data because tree rings started showing a decline in temperature around 1960 and they wanted to fix what went “wrong”.”.
“… my colleagues would not have manipulated the fundamental data. They have not done that. They have occasionally, um, tweaked a, a diagram so that in the case of the decline thing, they, they, plotted, a real temperature data from thermometers along with their tree ring data.”
Doesn’t that just make you want to scream?
100 reasons why it’s not man made
http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
From: Obamaforever per #27
To: honeyman (I like blowing smoke out of my
ass.) per #28 and #32
Quote: per #28
You mean that the AGW zealots on the site
ripped into him with a torrent of
unsubstantiated abuse as per the modus
operandi of all AGW zealots.
End of quote.
You say that you are not a climatologist
or a scientist, but you KNOW that
what the people on the realclimate site are
saying about Peter Taylor is unsubstantiated
abuse. If you are not a scientist or a
climatologist how can you know this.
I am thinking you are pulling this from
your ass.
honeyman, did you actually go to the
http://www.realclimate.org site and read the
the article? If you did, please provide
proof.
You can provide the proof by giving us the
entire web address of the article, but until then, SHUT-UP!
honeyman, you are blowing so much smoke
out of your ass you blot out the sun!!!!!!!!
From: Obamaforever per #27
To: honeyman
per #28 and #32
honeyman, did you actually go to the
http://realclimate.org site and read the
the article? If you did, please provide
proof.
You can provide the proof by giving us the
entire web address of the article.
Sorry about #48. It seems that you do not need
to write the code. I thought the blog had “eaten” by first post, thus, the censured #48 by me.
#47 Obamaforever
I don’t know the science but I can spot unsubstantiated abuse when I see it.
I rest my case.
From: Obamaforever
To: honeyman per #50
I see that you did not provide the web address to the realclimate article and thus you did not read the article.
honeyman, you will blow smoke until the very end.