Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango  @totally_screwed:
I see you missed the part where the model was shown to be not predictive of anything; where it has been proved that climate data is being intentionally fudged with secret algorithms to make it conform to the politically preordained conclusion (twice), the last one in particular dealing with just these ground stations; where the methodology for coming up with any kind of average has been shown to be so shaky as to not be defensible; and where the raw data from satellites and balloons does NOT correlate with ground based measurements. Not to mention the fact that killing all industry in developed nations will not have any impact on the temperature, except in the huts of the huddled masses, where it will be very cold in winter.
You're a little late to the classroom.
Yes, your viewpoint will win the day. They won't really kill all economic activity or human survival access to energy. They will just restrict it, tax it, and use the money and the power to rule you.
Edit: Your viewpoint will win because your kind chooses the peers to do the peer review, and ignores those who don't toe the line. But you'd better stay busy:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-6880767e7966
Looks like some of them are being cautious.
If I'm flying along in my fuel-wasting airplane, and my static port freezes over, I will break the glass on an instrument to get an alternate static source, however reluctant I might be to do so. If instruments are collecting bad data, that is worse than having no instrument at all. |
The link you supplied is politically biased merde du jour is a pack of lies and worthless. Try harder!.
You supply no evidence. Be specific, I'm not searching when you can point me directly to the instances referred to. References please!
As an example I will briefly debunk the Shulte survey featuring on the blog url you posted.
The Schulte 'survey' is merely a regurgitation of Benny Peiser's discredited and ultimately retracted failed rebuttal of Oreskes' peer-reviewed survey of research papers on climate change.
Schulte's failed rebuttal strangely even makes the same mistakes as Peiser.
Perhaps you could direct me where it has been published in an ISI peer-reviewed Journal? I think not!
Presumably the rest of your points are as significant!
You'll really have to try harder!
Seems like your jibe "You're a little late to the classroom", really applies to you!