"Bawana" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 6, 8:16 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
US Historical Climatology Network Data: The WHOLE Truth!

Anna Nicole Smith's Death Blamed on Global Warming
By Doug Giles
Saturday, February 10, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2kq2tp

Our globe would probably cool off several degrees if Al Gore would
just shut up and loose some weight. First things first, Al.

The unsubstantiated hot air that emits from Gore's pie hole, the
friction heat his chunky thighs generate when he waddles, plus the
greenhouse gas he bellows out his backside after scarfing down the
grande enchilada platter at Casa Ole are enough to make a polar bear
bust a sweat.

Speaking of polar bears, I do hope it gets a little warmer up north.
I've always wanted to hunt polar bear, but it's just been too cold. Go
warmer temps!

Back to Gore.
You and I both know that Gore would be warning us about
the negative effects of Spider Monkey urine if it would ingratiate him
to the voting public. And that's what his global warming, god awful
warbling is all about: the unavoidable Presidential aspirations of
Albert Gore. Jose Feliciano can see that.

Evidently, global warming didn't hit Texas last month when I was there
during Dallas' Safari Club. It was cold. I'm talkin' Hillary chilly.
Also, I believe it snowed in Malibu this year. But that, too, could be
a sign.

As a matter of fact, everything is now an omen that our orb is getting
over-cooked.

· Lindsay Lohan's fire crotch? Global warming.

· Paula Abdul's speech slurs? Global warming.

· The tarpon bite has been a little slow and late this year in Miami.
Global warming. I've noticed also that the flying fish have shortened
their glide paths. Coincidence? I don't think so.

· Anna Nicole Smith's untimely death? Global warming . . . or
possibly, her opportunistic lawyer, Howard K. Stern?

· Astronauts doing whacky things with BB guns, love triangles and
adult diapers? Must be global warming. Think about it.

· This could also be the reason why Rosie's so angry all the time. The
gradual roasting of our terra firma under her feet is making her
irritated. Or, maybe she's just plump and pouty. It's a coin toss on
that one.

I was watching a guy on TV a few weeks ago talk about earthy
balminess. He had his running helicopter parked on a slab of ice. As
he spoke about our toasty planet, the viewing audience got hit with
the obligatory sad seal pictures, melting snowman, gloomy Eskimo
photos and a watery Slushy from 7-Eleven.

After his opening remarks, the snow prophet of doom pointed to a
nearby ice bank and said, "Behold, even as I speaketh the ice
melteth." I'm thinking, "Really? How about turning off the helicopter?
The red hot engine and the 200mph wind storm the chopper is generating
could possibly be culpable for your nippy apocalypse." I guarantee if
he would have switched off Chopper 1 and held still for 30 minutes,
Nostradamus would be doing his prophecy with snotcicles hanging off
his nose and his hands crammed down his pants in an attempt to keep
them warm.

As the earnest tree humpers try to convince us all that their moist
Armageddon is a soon coming slip-n-slide reality, I'm kinda thinking
that maybe, just maybe, they're full of crap, their stats are trumped,
their science is specious and this is a politically driven liberal wet
dream.

As a matter of fact, I'm sidin' with Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P.
Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science prof at MIT) when he says,
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over
a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded
to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age."

In the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and
Environmentalism, Christopher Horner shatters the global warming
blather in 303 pages of earth cooling facts. He chills the left with
several inconvenient truths for Al Snore, I mean Gore, and his 5 alarm
cheerleaders. Stuff like:

· The earth has often been hotter than it is now.

· Only a tiny portion of greenhouse gases are manmade.

· Most of Antarctica is getting colder.

· The media only recently abandoned the "global cooling" scare.

· "Global warming" hasn't made hurricanes worse. Our tendency to put
up trailer houses in their path is getting greater.

· There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

· Climate is always changing with or without man.

· Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will
increase their profits - and our costs.

· The Medieval Warm period was significantly warmer than temps today
and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation and lifespan.

And these are just the tip of the re-freezing iceberg.

I'd love to see the alarmist, over-the-top doomsters of the left take
on Horner's book page by page and try, with a straight face, to
dismantle it. They couldn't do it.

God, if you are up there and you are listening to me and you're taking
requests, I would love to watch a televised debate between Horner and
Gore-or any one of his greenhouse gas sniffers. I'll even go so far as
hosting it down here in Miami, Jesus. Please, Lord . . . will You make
it happen? C'mon, God . . . I don't ask for much.

Amen.

Doug Giles is the creator and host of The Clash radio shows, winners
of seven Silver Microphone Awards and two Communicator Awards in the
last three years, and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

"Bawana" wrote nothing but ignorance

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States,
frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this
as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on
climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely
affected
by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major
uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there
might
be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the
reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by
the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science
as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of
peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent
assessment,
IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is
that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human
activities
... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ...
that
absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming
over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse
gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
the
National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis
of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface
air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)].
The
report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of
professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's
conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to
have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this
issue"
[p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the
Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many
opportunities
for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they
would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members.
Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis
was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with
the
keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of
the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus
position.
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or
studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of
confusion,
disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression
is
incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely
blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic
climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and
there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about
climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have
repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to
listen.

References and Notes

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy 2
(1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published
abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words,
the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial
Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at
the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the
History
of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my
research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R.
Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for
helpful
discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618

"Bawana" wrote
"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial,
no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no
methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate,
too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no
argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified,
and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in
print."

Then what's preventing you from publishing your ignorance? And why are your
denialist brethren complaining about their inability to get published?

You ****ing Stupid, AmeriKKKan Cocksucker.

On Mar 6, 8:16 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
US Historical Climatology Network Data: The WHOLE Truth!

Anna Nicole Smith's Death Blamed on Global Warming
By Doug Giles
Saturday, February 10, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2kq2tp

Our globe would probably cool off several degrees if Al Gore would
just shut up and loose some weight. First things first, Al.

The unsubstantiated hot air that emits from Gore's pie hole, the
friction heat his chunky thighs generate when he waddles, plus the
greenhouse gas he bellows out his backside after scarfing down the
grande enchilada platter at Casa Ole are enough to make a polar bear
bust a sweat.

Speaking of polar bears, I do hope it gets a little warmer up north.
I've always wanted to hunt polar bear, but it's just been too cold. Go
warmer temps!

Back to Gore.
You and I both know that Gore would be warning us about
the negative effects of Spider Monkey urine if it would ingratiate him
to the voting public. And that's what his global warming, god awful
warbling is all about: the unavoidable Presidential aspirations of
Albert Gore. Jose Feliciano can see that.

Evidently, global warming didn't hit Texas last month when I was there
during Dallas' Safari Club. It was cold. I'm talkin' Hillary chilly.
Also, I believe it snowed in Malibu this year. But that, too, could be
a sign.

As a matter of fact, everything is now an omen that our orb is getting
over-cooked.

· Lindsay Lohan's fire crotch? Global warming.

· Paula Abdul's speech slurs? Global warming.

· The tarpon bite has been a little slow and late this year in Miami.
Global warming. I've noticed also that the flying fish have shortened
their glide paths. Coincidence? I don't think so.

· Anna Nicole Smith's untimely death? Global warming . . . or
possibly, her opportunistic lawyer, Howard K. Stern?

· Astronauts doing whacky things with BB guns, love triangles and
adult diapers? Must be global warming. Think about it.

· This could also be the reason why Rosie's so angry all the time. The
gradual roasting of our terra firma under her feet is making her
irritated. Or, maybe she's just plump and pouty. It's a coin toss on
that one.

I was watching a guy on TV a few weeks ago talk about earthy
balminess. He had his running helicopter parked on a slab of ice. As
he spoke about our toasty planet, the viewing audience got hit with
the obligatory sad seal pictures, melting snowman, gloomy Eskimo
photos and a watery Slushy from 7-Eleven.

After his opening remarks, the snow prophet of doom pointed to a
nearby ice bank and said, "Behold, even as I speaketh the ice
melteth." I'm thinking, "Really? How about turning off the helicopter?
The red hot engine and the 200mph wind storm the chopper is generating
could possibly be culpable for your nippy apocalypse." I guarantee if
he would have switched off Chopper 1 and held still for 30 minutes,
Nostradamus would be doing his prophecy with snotcicles hanging off
his nose and his hands crammed down his pants in an attempt to keep
them warm.

As the earnest tree humpers try to convince us all that their moist
Armageddon is a soon coming slip-n-slide reality, I'm kinda thinking
that maybe, just maybe, they're full of crap, their stats are trumped,
their science is specious and this is a politically driven liberal wet
dream.

As a matter of fact, I'm sidin' with Dr. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P.
Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science prof at MIT) when he says,
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over
a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded
to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age."

In the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and
Environmentalism, Christopher Horner shatters the global warming
blather in 303 pages of earth cooling facts. He chills the left with
several inconvenient truths for Al Snore, I mean Gore, and his 5 alarm
cheerleaders. Stuff like:

· The earth has often been hotter than it is now.

· Only a tiny portion of greenhouse gases are manmade.

· Most of Antarctica is getting colder.

· The media only recently abandoned the "global cooling" scare.

· "Global warming" hasn't made hurricanes worse. Our tendency to put
up trailer houses in their path is getting greater.

· There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

· Climate is always changing with or without man.

· Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will
increase their profits - and our costs.

· The Medieval Warm period was significantly warmer than temps today
and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation and lifespan.

And these are just the tip of the re-freezing iceberg.

I'd love to see the alarmist, over-the-top doomsters of the left take
on Horner's book page by page and try, with a straight face, to
dismantle it. They couldn't do it.

God, if you are up there and you are listening to me and you're taking
requests, I would love to watch a televised debate between Horner and
Gore-or any one of his greenhouse gas sniffers. I'll even go so far as
hosting it down here in Miami, Jesus. Please, Lord . . . will You make
it happen? C'mon, God . . . I don't ask for much.

Amen.

Doug Giles is the creator and host of The Clash radio shows, winners
of seven Silver Microphone Awards and two Communicator Awards in the
last three years, and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

On Mar 6, 5:30 pm, "Bawana" wrote:

God, if you are up there and you are listening to me and you're taking
requests, I would love to watch a televised debate between Horner and

Bawana Sucking Exxon's Banana happens every day.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...7b6a960c4eaea7
In 1993 Fred Singer occupied the offices at:
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
Suite 300 Telephone (202) 293-7440
1015 18th Street, NW Fax (202) 293-9393 Washington, DC 20036

Today those offices are occupied by co-author Dennis T. Avery.
http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050609.htm
Dennis T. Avery is ... a Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute
(www.hudsoninstitute.org), a nonpartisan think-tank with offices in
the
nation's capital. He is the author of a forthcoming book on the
history of climate change. Readers may write him at Hudson,
1015 18th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036.

Coincidence?

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/60019650-9650.html
The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
Sincerely ,Gerhard
Stohrer" : , Direcior, Chemical Risk Project Suite 300 Telephone (202)
293-7440 -1015 18th Street, NW Fax (202) 293-9393 Washington, DC 20036
..... Telex 220759 ICF UR

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n2-singer.html
S. Fred Singer
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html
S. Fred Singer is the director of the science and environmental policy
project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy and is
professor of environmental sciences (on leave) at the University of
Virginia.

Coincidence?

http://www.heartland.org/archives/en.../directory.htm
Michael Fumento
Senior Fellow
Hudson Institute
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-223-8595

Coincidence?

Hudson Institute and Moon's Discovery Institute, Coincidence?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...8e3eb15cdf2392

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman, George
Gilder, and Stephen C. Meyer as a non-profit educational foundation
and
think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis. It was
founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute

http://www.answers.com/topic/washing...alues-in-publi...
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy was
originally created by members of the Unification Church as an
outgrowth
of the World Peace Academy. The institute promotes the virtue of
public
service, especially nations transcending self-interest to work for the
well-being of other nations.
It has published books, such as Central America in crisis : a
program for action and Arms Control: an American dilemma, by US
Ambassador William Kintner (reissued by Paragon House); as well as a
journal. Its staff director was Jonathan Slevin.
The Science and Environmental Policy Project was founded by S.
Fred Singer as an affiliate of the Institute.

Coincidence?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP
Science and Environmental Policy Project - SourceWatch
S. Fred Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP) in 1990.
It began as a research effort for a book Dr. Singer ... Sun Myung
Moon.
....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ce_C._Crandall
Candace C. Crandall - SourceWatch
.... an organization affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification
Church
(UC) and
.... Crandall and S. Fred Singer separated in August 1999, at which
time
her ...

Coincidence?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a7e45906b4ece2

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4a72d3972e4f16

Coincidence?

Hudson Institute has a long history with Moonies, founding Discovery
Institute "Intelligunt Desine" as a
project. Singer, Seitz, Ames and Fumento are all deeply involved in
TASC fraud operations together.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy Sincerely,
Gerhard Stohrer, Director, Chemical Risk
Project, Suite 300 Telephone (202) 293-7440 -1015 18th Street, NW Fax
(202) 293-9393 Washington, DC
20036 .... Telex 220759 ICF UR

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/60019650-9650.html
The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
Sincerely ,Gerhard Stohrer" : , Direcior, Chemical Risk
Project Suite 300 Telephone (202) 293-7440 -1015 18th Street, NW Fax
(202) 293-9393 Washington, DC
20036 .... Telex 220759 ICF UR

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Environmental_...
Science and Environmental Policy Project - SourceWatch
S. Fred Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP) in 1990.
It began as a research effort for a book Dr. Singer ... Sun Myung
Moon. ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP
Science and Environmental Policy Project - SourceWatch
S. Fred Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP) in 1990.
It began as a research effort for a book Dr. Singer ... Sun Myung
Moon. ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ce_C._Crandall
Candace C. Crandall - SourceWatch
.... an organization affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification
Church (UC) and
.... Crandall and S. Fred Singer separated in August 1999, at which
time her ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nstitute_for_V...
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy - SourceWatch
.... now-defunct think tank linked to Sun Myung Moon's Unification
Church (UC).
.... S. Fred Singer's SEPP received startup funding and a one-year
donation of ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hard_St%F6hrer
Gerhard Stöhrer - SourceWatch
.... a now-defunct think tank affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's
Unification Church.
.... SEPP, founded in 1990 by S. Fred Singer who also held a speech at
that ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...erhard_Stohrer
Gerhard Stöhrer - SourceWatch
.... a now-defunct think tank affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's
Unification Church.
.... SEPP, founded in 1990 by S. Fred Singer who also held a speech at
that ...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...-currents.html
S. Fred Singer
University of Virginia and
Washington Institute for
Values in Public Policy

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n2-singer.html
S. Fred Singer
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html
S. Fred Singer is the director of the science and environmental policy
project
at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy and is
professor of
environmental sciences (on leave) at the University of Virginia.

http://www.answers.com/topic/washing...alues-in-publi...
Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy
The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy was
originally created by members of the Unification
Church as an outgrowth of the World Peace Academy. The institute
promotes the virtue of public service,
especially nations transcending self-interest to work for the well-
being of other nations.
It has published books, such as Central America in crisis : a
program for action and Arms Control: an
American dilemma, by US Ambassador William Kintner (reissued by
Paragon House); as well as a journal. Its
staff director was Jonathan Slevin.
The Science and Environmental Policy Project was founded by S.
Fred Singer as an affiliate of the
Institute.

http://paracelsusclinic.com/articles/display.asp?ID=16
(Source, S. Fred Singer, "Climate Impact of Solar Variability,"
Washington Institute for Values in Public
Policy, 1015 18th N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C., 202-293-7440.)

http://tinyurl.com/chazx
Results for "1015 18th Street, NW," SEPP.

http://www.heartland.org/archives/en.../directory.htm
Michael Fumento
Senior Fellow
Hudson Institute
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-223-8595

http://www.csuchico.edu/~kcfount/thinktanks.html
Hudson Institute
http://www.hudson.org
E-Mail:
1015 18th St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-223-7770
Fax: 202-223-8537 "Hudson Institute's mission is to be America's
premier source of applied research
on enduring policy challenges...In Hudson Institute's policy
recommendations, articles, books, conferences,
and contributions to the electronic media, we share optimism about the
future and a willingness to question
conventional wisdom. We demonstrate commitment to free markets and
individual responsibility, confidence
in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the
importance of culture and religion in human
affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security."
(http://www.hudson.org -- Learn about Hudson)

http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050609.htm
Dennis T. Avery is a former State Department analyst and a Senior
Fellow at The Hudson Institute
(www.hudsoninstitute.org), a nonpartisan think-tank with offices in
the nation's capital. He is the author of a
forthcoming book on the history of climate change. Readers may write
him at Hudson, 1015 18th Street NW,
Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036.

http://www.heartland.org/LinksCategory.cfm?lctId=2
Federalist Society
Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies is a group of conservatives and
libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.
1015 18th Street NW #425
Washington, DC 20036
Phone 202/822-8138
Fax 202/296-8061
Email

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizen...s/a0037006.cfm
FEDERALIST SOCIETY
A conservative group with 25,000 members, many of them lawyers and law
students, the society sponsors
"fair, serious, and open debate" on issues such as individual liberty
and limited government. Among the
group's claim to fame: at least 49 of President Bush's 230 federal-
court ...

On Mar 6, 3:38 am, "Vendicar Decarian" squeezed


"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial,
no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no
methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate,
too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no
argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified,
and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in
print."
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical
Association

To the socialists CO2 obsessed omadawns:

A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field. These
theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
accused of being ignorant, which makes for a convenient, easy
dismissal of any anomalous evidence. Since any such evidence is thus
automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals, this
lack of documentation is then in turn taken by researchers in the
field as proof that the evidence must be of low scientific value.

Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
entire organization may lose credibility or funding.

An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.

"Bawana" wrote
The peer review process may be subject to bias toward recognized name
institutions as well as toward research that is in accord with the
referee's views.

It is. You will never have your perpetual motition machine patented
either since there is a bias in the patent office against the violation of
energy conservation and thermodynamics.

Seeing how global warming denialists are also intimately related to
violations of the laws of thermodynamics, it follows that they don't have
much success in getting their nonsense published.

This is how science filters quackery (not just global warming denialism
quackery) from real science.

You ****ing Stupid, AmeriKKKan Cocksucker.


"Bawana" wrote
What turd world **** hole are you wasting space in, tard?



Tundra Disappearing At Rapid RateDate - March 7, 2007
-------------------------------------
University of Alberta

The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a
prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments.
As
global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to
advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always
occur
gradually but can surge ahead.

"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances
are
very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and
altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological
Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope
surge
of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until
conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not
just
walk."

Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science,
reconstructed
changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in
southwestern
Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to
date
the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct
changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal
of
Ecology."

They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during
the
early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline
advanced
considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing
slopes
and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on
cooler, north-facing slopes.

"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional
years of
extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry
summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable
for
seedling growth and survival," said Danby.

Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says
Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and
habitats
are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in
mountainous
areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and
smaller
areas," said Danby.

These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions
where
First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra
species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts
of
that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline
advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because
coniferous
trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then
re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive
feedback,"
the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic
ice
cap.

"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding
climate
change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will
be
quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially
transforming
tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will
also
be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be
examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar
Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.

"Bawana" wrote
The peer review process may be subject to bias toward recognized name
institutions as well as toward research that is in accord with the
referee's views.

It is. You will never have your perpetual motition machine patented
either since there is a bias in the patent office against the violation of
energy conservation and thermodynamics.

Seeing how global warming denialists are also intimately related to
violations of the laws of thermodynamics, it follows that they don't have
much success in getting their nonsense published.

This is how science filters quackery (not just global warming denialism
quackery) from real science.

You ****ing Stupid, AmeriKKKan Cocksucker.


"Bawana" wrote
What turd world **** hole are you wasting space in, tard?



Tundra Disappearing At Rapid RateDate - March 7, 2007
-------------------------------------
University of Alberta

The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a
prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments.
As
global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to
advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always
occur
gradually but can surge ahead.

"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances
are
very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and
altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological
Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope
surge
of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until
conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not
just
walk."

Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science,
reconstructed
changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in
southwestern
Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to
date
the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct
changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal
of
Ecology."

They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during
the
early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline
advanced
considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing
slopes
and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on
cooler, north-facing slopes.

"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional
years of
extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry
summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable
for
seedling growth and survival," said Danby.

Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says
Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and
habitats
are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in
mountainous
areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and
smaller
areas," said Danby.

These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions
where
First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra
species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts
of
that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline
advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because
coniferous
trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then
re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive
feedback,"
the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic
ice
cap.

"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding
climate
change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will
be
quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially
transforming
tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will
also
be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be
examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar
Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.

On Mar 7, 5:51 pm, "Bawana" wrote:
The peer review process may be subject to bias toward recognized name
institutions as well as toward research that is in accord with the
referee's views.

On Mar 8, 2:19 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
Different journals have different publication procedures.
When I was an editor of a computer science journal,
the name, institution, and any other information
identifying the author was removed from the article,
before it was sent to the reviewers. I believe this
is still typical practice in science.

"Bawana" responded silence

He voiced his thoughts clearly on this occasion.

On Mar 6, 4:13 am, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:
"Bawana" wrote

"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial,
no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no
methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate,
too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no
argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified,
and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in
print."

Then what's preventing you from publishing your ignorance? And why are your
denialist brethren complaining about their inability to get published?

The peer review process may be subject to bias toward recognized name
institutions as well as toward research that is in accord with the
referee's views.

You ****ing Stupid, AmeriKKKan Cocksucker.

What turd world **** hole are you wasting space in, tard?