“The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.”

- Kate Hampton, international climate co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth said: “The fossil fuel industry and the US government will be celebrating their success in kicking out Bob Watson, an experienced scientist who understood that urgent action is needed to tackle global climate change. The Bush administration and its friends would rather shoot the messenger than listen to the message.”

You are improving.

- Thank you – not that it means anything to me. You have yet to improve.

You still didn’t provide any link or cite demonstrating Gore hand picked Watson. That is an accusation contained in a memo from an apponent. Your own link provides the clue as to how the head of the IPPC is chosen.

- No this is common knowledge or perhaps you don’t read the mainstream news you like to site.. even liberal ones. Check the links! I won’t feed you with a baby spoon. If you don’t want to check it, too bad.

The removal of U.S. support for Watson’s leadership makes it likely that he will not be reelected when the IPCC meets in Geneva from April 17-20 to elect a new 30 person bureau.

Did you read that. They are elected by the member countries, not hand picked by a Vice President.

- Wrong, read the links i provided they are “voted” aka appointed and lobbied in by the presidents office that is how Rajendra got into power – this is what the NYT claims. You choose whatever is convenient to you.. “watson was voted” “rajendra was voted” although NYT etc.. claim he was “lobbied into power”…do you think watson got into power without the lobbying? <- the argument makes no sense.

*

Second quote,

Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate,

Dang !!! There is that “election” word again. How the heck are you supposed to appoint people to a position when others get to vote on him?

- you lobby. Did you read the other links i provided on how Rajendra got into power? No you didn't…

*

Third link, well lets just say it doesn’t alter anything. Watson wasn’t re-elected there either. BTW, have you ever heard of “tinyurl.com”? If you are going to use URLs that long it might be to your advantage.

- have you heard about stfu? if you can't take long links go suck on it.

*

And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!

Such as … ?

- google (type in agw sceptics), i've posted it about 2-3 other times in similar threads. (see below again) Not just me, but about 20 other people on here as well. You just don't read do you, zealot

You see, here again you made a bold statement without backing it up. You then have the audacity to tell ME to look it up. If there are so many scientists speaking out then surely you can name five that don’t believe the earth’s climate is warming. As for professional associations, I’ll accept just one. The only caveat is that the professionals and association have some connection to climate sciences. BTW, Cap and Trade is a totally separate issue.

- Go suck it Fusion (there are over 30,000 scientists.. find the list d-bag i dare you) and it has nothing to do with the earth's climate warming it has everything to do with the debate on whether it is anthropological global warming. Stop twisting shit and see the HUGE difference. And no, Cap and Trade is not a separate issue, because it is the same d-bags pushing that agenda and who owns the systems they want to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469

http://businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#bjorn-lomborg-2

http://newsbusters.org/node/12793

*

My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist.

Well, you didn’t phrase it well. In fact you said,

According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them – That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong. Funny thing is that they have all released papers making scientific claims about the climate, yet having no doctorate in climatology.

As I pointed out above. Rambling and disjointed. What is the subject in this paragraph? Is it Obamaforever, mathematicians, AWG is happening, you proving us wrong, or what?

- Oh sentence structure and punctuation nazi.. i clarified your misunderstanding. "They" was in reference to Watson and Rajendra, based upon the argument you and obamaforever had made, which i proved wrong – your argument structure is what we call "appeal to authority". May i be a grammar nazi and tell you that it is spelt AGW and not AWG? or are you rambling and being disjointed as well?

Anyone can speak out about something. In order for their opinion to carry weight though, it is best if they know and understand the subject. A mathematician can very well discuss the attributes of any math computations, an astronomer can understand the value and quantity of the sun’s impact, … as experts. That does not qualify them to start deciphering ice cores or discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climates.

- Who says that they are deciphering ice cores? are you making an assumption here? i never made that argument. And yes a mathematician can indeed discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climate if the mathematics and statistical analysis is wrong… A high school student can even do so.. they don't need to look at the ice core, they look at the data. If there is no significant statistical correlation then they can indeed say that it is wrong. After climate gate, russian and australian scandal it was pretty evident the data was indeed wrong.

*

From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary.

You see, this is where you lose all credibility. Well, what little you had left. I don’t recall Obamaforever, and I know I haven’t, cited any poll claiming “97% agreement”. Especially one that was debunked. Maybe if you have the time, you could tell us what thread and post numbers those were.

- No indeed it wasn't you, my mistake. The poll is here.

And yes it was debunked.. the questions were leading.

*

You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.

You see, we have a problem. You like quantity and I like quality. You will post a link and suggest someone read it it. Why? How about I post some links for you to read? If you got past Gr. 10, you would know that that kind of sloppiness quickly earns a F. As the reader you give ME the information, don’t tell me to read someone elses report and sift through the garbage. Don’t point me to a video and say “see, proof”.

- Ok, you need to start to STFU.. look at your own bloody posting history. Crap load of posts where you only give the link and expect people to go find the information. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ, DON'T F*** COMPLAIN! and you have no quality what-so-ever, just a self inflated ego.

The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.

-Interesting how you have decided that I don't like someone and that is the basis of my debunking of their theories. The messenger has a lot to say how the message is delivered – and i can surely attack both. I see you doing so all the time..

Including the fraud.

You have no shame. Therefore, calling you a hack wouldn’t bather you in the least.

You are improving.

You still didn’t provide any link or cite demonstrating Gore hand picked Watson. That is an accusation contained in a memo from an apponent. Your own link provides the clue as to how the head of the IPPC is chosen.

The removal of U.S. support for Watson’s leadership makes it likely that he will not be reelected when the IPCC meets in Geneva from April 17-20 to elect a new 30 person bureau.

Did you read that. They are elected by the member countries, not hand picked by a Vice President.

*

Second quote,

Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate,

Dang !!! There is that “election” word again. How the heck are you supposed to appoint people to a position when others get to vote on him?

*

Third link, well lets just say it doesn’t alter anything. Watson wasn’t re-elected there either. BTW, have you ever heard of “tinyurl.com”? If you are going to use URLs that long it might be to your advantage.

*

And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!

Such as … ?

You see, here again you made a bold statement without backing it up. You then have the audacity to tell ME to look it up. If there are so many scientists speaking out then surely you can name five that don’t believe the earth’s climate is warming. As for professional associations, I’ll accept just one. The only caveat is that the professionals and association have some connection to climate sciences. BTW, Cap and Trade is a totally separate issue.

*

My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist.

Well, you didn’t phrase it well. In fact you said,

According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them – That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong. Funny thing is that they have all released papers making scientific claims about the climate, yet having no doctorate in climatology.

As I pointed out above. Rambling and disjointed. What is the subject in this paragraph? Is it Obamaforever, mathematicians, AWG is happening, you proving us wrong, or what?

Anyone can speak out about something. In order for their opinion to carry weight though, it is best if they know and understand the subject. A mathematician can very well discuss the attributes of any math computations, an astronomer can understand the value and quantity of the sun’s impact, … as experts. That does not qualify them to start deciphering ice cores or discount a correlation between CO2 and historical climates.

*

From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary.

You see, this is where you lose all credibility. Well, what little you had left. I don’t recall Obamaforever, and I know I haven’t, cited any poll claiming “97% agreement”. Especially one that was debunked. Maybe if you have the time, you could tell us what thread and post numbers those were.

*

You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.

You see, we have a problem. You like quantity and I like quality. You will post a link and suggest someone read it it. Why? How about I post some links for you to read? If you got past Gr. 10, you would know that that kind of sloppiness quickly earns a F. As the reader you give ME the information, don’t tell me to read someone elses report and sift through the garbage. Don’t point me to a video and say “see, proof”.

The “proof” you posted is meaningless. Just because you don’t like someone is not a refutation of a report with their name on it. It is a personal smear and usually only worthy of contempt. If you can’t attack the message, DON’T attack the messenger.

“Critics of Pachauri’s candidacy note that his two PhDs are in economics and industrial engineering, and argue that a scientist with a stronger background in atmospheric science would be a better choice.
Today, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a private conservation group, released papers showing that the energy industry has been quietly pressing for the removal of Watson from the helm of the IPCC since the Bush administration took office in January 2001.

Oil giant ExxonMobil sent a confidential memo to the White House urging the Bush administration to replace Watson, who “was hand picked by [former Vice President] Al Gore,” along with other Clinton era appointees, with a “team that can better represent the Bush Administration interests.”" – Environmental News Service (http://ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-03-07.asp)

Quote on quote written by Al Gore in NYT: “ExxonMobil has been allowed to veto the United States government’s selection of who will head the prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming. Dr. Robert Watson, the highly respected leader of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, was blackballed in a memo to the White House from the nation’s largest oil company. The memo had its effect last Friday, when Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the “let’s drag our feet” candidate, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of New Delhi, who is known for his virulent anti-American statements.” – NYT

http://nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21GORE.html

“[Robert T. Watson] was defeated by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian candidate who was backed by the United States but who, Gore wrote, “is known for his virulent anti-American state” – Washington Post

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/116961618.html?dids=116961618:116961618&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+21%2C+2002&author=Thomas+E.+Ricks&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Industries+Dominate+Bush+Policy%2C+Gore+Says%3B+Former+Candidate+Blasts+Energy+Moves&pqatl=google

Check the rest of the links and learn how to investigate before jumping to your own conclusions.

And you are completely wrong Mr.Fusion – NOT ALL serious scientists and ALL professional association have accepted the concept of AGW, in fact if you have watched the news, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. Even highly acclaimed climatologists, even IPCC scientists that contributed to the 4 IPCC reports have spoken out against AGW and cap and trade. Look em up and you will be surprised!

My reference to no knowledge was not to you or obamaforever it was specifically to Rajendra and Watson, because neither is a climatologist. From previous posts both you and Obamaforever hacked down on climate sceptics saying that only climatologist could accurately address AGW, citing 97% agreement among climatologist in a CNN poll, because only they knew the climate. That poll was actually de-bunked by another poll showing the contrary. Well neither of these IPCC nuts are climatologists. In another post that i made i specifically addressed this issue.. it is a fallacy in argument, because it is an appeal to authority. A mathematician, geologist, astronomer can indeed address the climate and be accurate at it.. and within these fields acceptance of AGW is far lower than 50%, if you cite that exact same CNN poll. That is what i proved you wrong with. If you spent a few minutes reading what people write, you would understand that; assuming i proved AGW was wrong is being stupid. I have no idea what right wing conspiracy radio nut talk you are talking about, because i don’t listen to it.. i’m not even American!

You don’t have to do any homework for me Mr.Fusion i read the reports, presentations and watched the videos and reported the facts as stated in quotes. I dare you to do the same and educate yourself rather than taking whatever is spoon fed to you by the media and bash people and call them names.

I didn’t smear them, they smeared themselves, all i did was to report the facts and show how tightly they are all connected to each other. Funny how Watson and Pachauri ended up at a vegetarian panel talk in 2008, promoting vegetarianism due to meat production harmful effect on the environment.. but i guess you are too scared to watch his presentation video?
1 (http://suprememastertelevision.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=featured_tw&wr_id=295)
2 (http://suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video&wr_id=22&goto_url=)

“Dr Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Thank you very much! I would like to say this to Supreme Master Television: Best wishes for your endeavors towards a sustainable world, thank you!

I would say, Go Veg, Be Green and Save Our Planet!

HOST: We thank you, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, for your tireless work to raise awareness about climate change and your encouragement of the vegetarian diet to solve global warming” – 2008 NZ (link 2)

You’re full of shit. Look it up.

If your point in another post was relevant I’d have checked it out already. Obviously there would be no need to suggest I do. Nothing you posted in #17 is worthy of my commenting on. Someone else might find it worthy, I found it rambling and irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. If it is necessary to back up your point, provide a link. Links to a search (that Google cut off) don’t cut it.

Accusations that Al Gore installed someone into a position of power requires a citation. A casual association is something entirely different and should not be used as a fact.

Through your piece you continue to accuse everyone of ulterior motives instead of accepting that ALL serious scientists and ALL serious professional associations have accepted the concept of AWG.

According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them

It means I trust those smarter than myself and who have actually studied the matter to have a lot more validity than someone who listens to and accepts conspiracy bullshit from right wing nut talk radio. I have a degree in engineering, yet I have to accept that I don’t know everything and have to accept others have done the work. I have learned to cull investigation from bullshit.

That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong.

YOU proved wrong? Now you are the ultimate “decider”? NEWS FLASH, “A denier is the ultimate decider”!!!

Let me make a long story short. The majority of your post is just ramblings. There is no point made. There is no refutation of any data presented. There are no alternative ideas presented. The links you present are disjointed from your comments (I won’t read a 80 page report to find what you want me to, I WON’T do your homework). All I can see is your attempt to refute some of the lead advocates of global warming by smearing them.

Sorry dude, you lost me at “Check out my post #17…”

Nice post, if you leave the www. out of the URL your links would work, thanks anyways!

Al Gore actually went out as a strong opposer to him coming into power, although Rajendra was already on the board, he was the vice chair and one of the five (also put in to place by Al Gore, hilarious). Neither him nor the previous IPCC guy, Watson have any background in climatology. Rajendra is a railway guy and Watson is a chemist put into power of the IPCC by Al Gore (this is documented check my post above).

If your wondering why the IPCC and Copenhagen wanted the World Bank to be in charge of the carbon trading, which had a huge uproar with 3rd world countries, because the World Bank is controlled by the western developed countries – Watson joined the World Bank as Senior Scientific adviser in the Environment Department in 1996, became Director of the Environment Department and Head of the Environment Sector Board in 1997 and is currently the Chief Scientist and Senior Adviser for Sustainable Development.

If you wonder why NASA got 2 bill USD in investment towards researching climate? Prior to joining the World Bank, Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of the President of the United States in the White House (Al Gore connection) and prior to that, Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

If your wondering why Brown is so pro AGW? 1. Watson is the lead at University of East Anglia, UK university that had the climategate scandal and 2. he joined in 2007 the British Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as Chief Scientific Adviser.

How is UN involved? Watson has been Chair or co-chair of other international scientific assessments, including the IPCC Working Group II, the United Nations Environment Programme/World Meteorological Organization (UNEP/WMO), and the UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment.

According to previous posts of Obamaforever and Mr Fusion et al. this means they have no knowledge and understanding of climate, this was the argument made against the climate skeptics so the same would apply to them – That a mathematician, statistician, astronomer or geologist could not speak out against AGW, because they were not qualified and that majority of “scientists” worldwide agreed that AGW was happening – which i proved wrong. Funny thing is that they have all released papers making scientific claims about the climate, yet having no doctorate in climatology. Robert Watson a chemist, was the director of Tyndall Centre at you guess where? University of East Anglia. Guess what website is deleted? His personal profile at University of East Anglia, but google has a cache:

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:5UqIUU_UGjwJ:www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/watsonr+Watson+IPCC+university+of+east+anglia&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Look up Watson’s 2002 presentation “Carbon and the Science – Policy Nexus The Kyoto Challenge” – then look at each of the slides and look at the graphs/data, i would have failed my basic statistics class with crackpot science that he presents. Mixing northern hemisphere proxy data with measured global data. Making quotes and conclusions without 1. sourcing the data 2. having the premises. This presentation was the basis for the IPCC reports and have been sourced numerous times. It even calls for “full carbon accounting” to the point of “all stocks across all carbon pools” even down to the type of land you own. “A pragmatic solution… (consistent with the current text) ensure that any credit for enhanced carbon stocks is balanced by accounting for any subsequent reductions in those carbon stocks, regardless of the cause.” The goal is even to do the accounting based on what latitude your country is at.

“It’s worth noting that the U.N. made 244 other temperature forecasts, all of them cooler than 11°F. But Watson pointed to the hottest one, telling the press that it “adds impetus for governments to find ways to live up to their commitments [under the Kyoto Protocol] to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.” ” (find link to cato in post above – this was during the Shanghai IPCC meeting).

Watson even released a paper titled: “Watson, R.T. (2005) Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 360(1454), 471-477″ – Turning Science into Policy, read the brief on this report and you will understand how science has turned into politics.

So why talk about Watson’s presentations and papers, because Rajendra’s data and political direction is influenced by all of Watson’s and as they worked together. Rajendra’s presentation “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” in 2005 was littered with the same graphs even sourcing IPCC data that they themselves have made and which was taken from, you guess where? University of East Anglia, which Watson was the Director of:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/day1/Pachauri.pdf

I also suggest reading Rajendra’s other presentations, having philosophical quotes on how spiritual guidance should play a role in government and a quote from Ghandi, I am sure these types of quotes should be in scientific presentations, because philosophy and political statements have a huge say in science:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/valencia-2007-11/pachauri-17-november-2007.pdf

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/meetings/winterthur_2008/presentations/Dr_Rajendra_K_Pachauri-ETH.pdf

There is so much dirt on these guys it isn’t even funny.. Rajendra was on the board of directors of indian oil corporation 1999-2004 then Board of Directors of GAIL 2003-2004 (natural gas company).. and in 2001 he was the vice chairman of the IPCC and was quoted as saying: “I think the time is long overdue when we should make a very serious attempt to shift to lower carbon-intensive fuels, which means much greater use of natural gas…” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2001/03/renewables-promoted-in-final-u-n-assessment-4734 Rajendra went as far as saying “”Economically and socially, it’s not all that expensive,” he says. “Politically, with the mindset that several of our leaders have, unfortunately it may be expensive. I would say if that’s expensive, change the leaders.”" and this is a guy Bush decided to put into power a year later according to the Washington Post and NYT and who Al Gore opposed? and the reasoning for the trading system is not to push the global CO2 down, but simply because of this “Without the benefit of an international emissions trading system, the report estimates that countries would incur costs of 0.2 to to 2 percent of their projected gross domestic product in 2010, which would drop to 0.1 to 1 percent with a full emissions trading system.” So the reason is cost on GDP, not decreasing emissions as they now claim the trading to do. And who owns the technology behind this system? Al Gore.

Rajendra even pushes his own religious agenda as a Hindu and devoted Vegetarian, he made a presentation at Planet Earth: Our Loving Home. To raise awareness of the profound and devastating environmental effects of livestock-raising, the UK-based non-profit group Compassion in World Farming hosted a lecture and panel discussion on the topic in London, England – Dr. Rajendra K. headlining speaker, presented on Global Warning: The Impact of Meat Production and Consumption on Climate Change. This presentation had who on the panel? Robert Watson, the previous IPCC chairman that was “ousted” by Rajendra, Bush, Exxon and India. Check out his slides and speech at http://suprememastertelevision.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video&wr_id=108&goto_url= (these guys push the veggie agenda in their own restaurants called “The Loving Hut” – http://www.lovinghut.us/ so expect incredible bias – they follow the Supreme Master Quan Yin, but they had the slides and video as they are connected to Planet Earth).

This is just skimming the surface of Rajendra and Watson and their political and religious involvements alongside their ‘dedicated’ scientific careers to climate. Please go back and read news articles about these guys. It is truly fascinating.