On Oct 7, 3:38*pm, Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:46*am, Tunderbar wrote:





On Oct 7, 8:30*am, Lloyd wrote:

On Oct 6, 5:11*pm, Michael Dobony wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:16:08 -0500, Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
Tunderbar wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:53 am, David wrote:
Accuweather - Brett
Andersonhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/10/drastic_action_now_need...

David Christainsen - meteorologist

Sounding a tad desperate. No one is buying this agw crap anymore,

* Except for every reputable scientific organization and national government
on earth.

* But keep lying, it's funny. *lol

Exciusse me, but the reputable scientists who have nothing to gain reject
GW.

Excuse me, but you're stupid. *Every scientific body in the world
accepts GW. *Every publication in major scientific journals does too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Every scientific body that recognises agw as a potential research
windfall worth in the billions.

AGU doesn't do scientific research. *National Academy of Sciences
doesn't do research.



How can you say that major scientific journals accepts agw? Aren't
they supposed to be neutral and simply provide publishing services to
the researchers? Do you have any proof that scientific journals accept
agw?

When they apply science and peer review to submitted papers, those
denying the facts and basic scientific principles don't make it, any
more than papers denying atoms or the earth going around the sun do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What about those studies that use crappy cherry-picked temp
reconstruction proxies and ignore the remaining proxy datasets that
don't support their activist agenda? Or those studies that declare a
consensus based on a cherry-picked set of approx 900 studies while
ignoring 15000 studies that don't support their activist agenda? Or
those that fudge data to make the late 21st century apparently warmer
than the past? Do they make it thru the process?