I’ll be in Chicago for the weekend, so consider this an open thread. Feel free to leave links and trackbacks.
Who said it?
“We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others’ point of view,”
Aren’t we on the same side? And isn’t it rather odd that the left has been waving their white flags for years, and have been especially critical of the troop escalation, yet they unanimously confimerd Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command U.S. troops in Iraq. He just happens to be the one that planned this escalation, yet the vote was 81-0!
AKD,
Yes, I know the entomology of Luddite and of Saboteur. You are both. If humans cause global warming, kill yourself to keep the globe cooler.
You are the non-logical one.
You do not throw out countervaling evidence to your theories by shouting concensus and call it science. That is RELIGION.
Does the A in your acronym stand for Acolyte?
49: The scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans has been determined by scientists who are paid to carry out their studies, regardless of the results. Oil industry tools like Lindzen are paid to arrive at specific results.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
This isn’t a request for an alternate study; it’s a bribe. Do you, dear peejz, understand the difference?
50: Yes, I know the entomology of Luddite and of Saboteur
The term “entomology” refers to the study of insects? I think that you mean “etymology” (which refers to word origins). Man, you’re stupid.
Perhaps the RVACS and PCD’s Junior Entomology Club could join forces.
“Perhaps the RVACS and PCD’s Junior Entomology Club could join forces.”
AKD your sophomoric attempt to mock us only makes you look like an idiot.
AKD, Eben, and Matthias are apparently all active, zealous members of Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming, the newest Leftist religion.
AKD if you actually knew about some of the science involved, rather than digesting then regurgitating rhetoric and propaganda, you just might have some doubts of your own. Of course that takes some native common sense, so it might not be possible for you.
CO2 is a very minor player in the Greenhouse Gas portfolio. For example, water vapor is 30 to 100 times as effective a GG as CO2. Methane is also more effective as a GG than CO2. Human contribution to CO2 is a very small percentage of the total; most, along with Methane and water vapor, comes from natural sources. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% at most of all CO2 generated is from human activity. So you have a small percentage of a minor player in the GG gas arena. And the “greenhouse effect”from the sun’s energy as a contributor to earth temperature is not understood. At best it is just one component to be input to a computer model, that’s it. (All this info is from NASA, btw).
So not a few, but the 15,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition Project, plus countless others who DO NOT have any vested interests, rightly point out that human contribution to GW is a HYPOTHESIS, and nothing more.
EVERYONE who is now asserting that human activity is causing GW falls into one of the following categories:
1. Scientists or other researchers who have a vested interest in promoting the GW hoax.
2. International Socialists who want control over other nation’s economies and other people’s lives.
3. Fraud artists and hucksters like Al Gore who see this issue as the ticket to notoriety, the limelight.
4. Religious zealots, typically Liberals and ecowackos, who have accepted the Church of Global Warming doctrine faithfully
5. Politicians who want to jump on the bandwagon for political promotion and self-interest.
6. Dopes who think it sounds so wonderful they’re on board, they’re on the bandwagon, they’re just oh-so-ecological.
7. Wankers who hate capitalism, hate the U.S. because we use more energy per capita than the mud people, hate SUVs, hate everything traditional.
8. Weak-minded individuals, trendoids, who have no capacity to think for themselves, no fundamental common sense, and just go with the flow du jour of their peers (this actually might be the same as #6. lots of crossover here).
Which category(s) do you fit in, AKDemocrat, Eben, Matthias?
51-The scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans has been determined by scientists who are paid to carry out their studies, regardless of the results. Oil industry tools like Lindzen are paid to arrive at specific results.
WRONGGGGGGG They produce the results they are paid to, because they are smart enough to know that if the results are not the desired outcome, they stop getting funded..funding is results oriented…All research is done like this..very competitive and results oriented. If the person that is paying doesn’t get what they want, they go elsewhere…But then again, you know that…
AKD, pull the GOVERNMENT FUNDING with no possible restoration and we’ll see what tune your puppets sing.
You xerox machines never can explain why man is so bad to the environment, but the massive and much greater quantities VOLCANOS have emitted since the formation of Earth is not the problem. AKD are you going to run to each volcano with a stopper to plug it up? Are you going to eliminate cattle from the Earth?
Let me get to the bottom line, are fools like AKD going to dictate who lives, who dies, and how the survivors live?
Just to add, is AKD one of the elites from Soylent Green?
PCD- Funding is the key…look at stem cell research…adult stem cell research has been around since the 50′s and through private funding, many beneficial “cures” have been gained…When the private sector did not get positive results from embryonic stem cell research, the private funds dried up, hence we now have an ad campaign going on about how the govt should fund this..it’s a game…
Hey what happened to those storms we were supposed to get last year?
Peejz, you know better than to confuse a true believing acolyte like AKD with facts that don’t fit his religion.
I sincerely apologize to San Francisco Liberal for forgetting to include him in my list of Church of Global Warming members in good standing. He surely is at least at the level of an Acolyte, if not higher. He was one of the first to declare his faith in Messiah Al Gore and the Church of GW in this forum!
It was an oversite, nothing more!
So many attacks from the RVACS and PCD’s JEC; so few arguments.
Just three quick points:
1) You suggest a liberal bias in all reports of human caused global warming, but you haven’t given me any indication that such a bias exists. On the other hand, we have a money trail leading from oil companies to GW debunkers. Can you provide any statistics in support of your ravings or are we supposed to take it all on faith. Incidentally, even if there were bias on the side of the scientific consensus (bias you’ve insisted on without providing any evidence), it doesn’t make the bias on your side go away.
2) Robert’s long, rambling description of CO2 doesn’t mean much in the face of the scientific consensus that I’ve cited above. I suggest you look over the previous posts. I’m sure you’ll agree that, though Robert may be the treasurer of the RVACS, he isn’t really a climatologist and we should probably take the scientific consensus more seriously. The fact that Robert is still trying to cite the petition project as a reliable source is proof of his desperation (or his illiteracy). Still, I guess that he’s more capable of putting a sentence together than pcd, who’s no doubt too busy with his bugs.
3) It’s funny to hear a group of dolts who likely jumped on the intelligent design bandwagon claiming that the scientific consensus on global warming is a religion. At least you’ve learned that religion is a bad word.
Breaking news:
It looks like Exxon is changing its tune in the face of the scientific consensus and joining the church!
…Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human’s role in global warming.
Damn Gorebots!!! Where will the RVACS get the money for next meeting’s milk and cookies?? Could pcd please provide the entomology [sic] for “screwed?”
I am wondering if anyone is aware of SEPP?
That would be the Science & Environmental Policy Project associated with Mr. Fred Singer. About a decade ago he argued that “there has been no indication in the last century that we’ve seen anything other than natural climate fluctuations.”
This turned out to be based on faulty science. The core of his argument was that although computer models show climate change, satelite photos do not. At the time, other scientists simply argued that the computers are more accurate—they’ve proven to be so in other cases. Regardless, recent satelite photos using more advanced equipment do in fact show warming and current scientific studies make use of both computer models and satelite imaging (though they still insist that the computers are generally much more accurate). Singer hasn’t responded to these findings.
Unfortunately, SEPP does not publish research. Supposedly they’re looking into the failures of their earlier position, however.
OOOPS!
I assumed that Singer and SEPP were simply wrong about their research (no conspiracy here), but I just found this…
“… S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO for his studies of global warming”
SEPP as a wider organization officially denies ever taking money from industry or governmental sources; however, ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 and 2000.
AKD:
So, are you asserting that $20,000.00 in donaations over six years ago to a single member invalidates SEPP’s assertions (non-profit, 501(c)3 educational group), yet a $1 billiom a year enviromental lobby some how does not invalidate their?
During the 1995-96 election cycle alone the enviromenytal lobby spent 95% of all money contributed to Democrats.
I’ve not entered the “Global Warming Debate” because frankly I don’t care about it. But to sit here and accuse one side of having a vested financial interest and give the other carte blanche is simply ridiculous.
I can see how both sides have a substantial finanicial interest here. It is the way Washington works. To deny that is to deny the nature of politics, and this topic definately falls under that category.
AKD- I did some research and found your source..just like you they don’t link to sources so I had to really do some digging.
Let’s take a look at the lobbying that is happening from sources listed but not cited:
Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $820,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $820,000
 the Sierra Club in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $171,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $171,000
Industry
Total
Environment
$171,000
the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2005
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $420,000
  Subtotal for Parent: $420,000
Industry
Total
Misc Issues
$420,000
Alaska Conservation Foundation
-
$160,000
Alliance to Save Energy
-
$60,000
Amer for Responsible Recreational Access
-
$240,000
American Bird Conservancy
-
$0
American Rivers Inc
-
$60,000
Assn of National Estuary Programs
-
$80,000
Bay Delta Urban Coalition
-
$30,000
California Coastal Conservancy
-
$120,000
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
-
$60,000
Citizens to Protect Lake Berryessa
-
$80,000
Climate Council
-
$20,000
Coastal Conservation Assn
-
$60,000
Conservation Fund
-
$120,000
Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico
-
$560,000
Crop Protection Coalition
-
$60,000
Defenders of Wildlife
-
$460,000
Ducks Unlimited
-
$60,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
-
$740,000
Environmental Council of the States
-
$70,000
Environmental Defense Fund
-
$450,898
Environmental Law & Policy Center
-
$40,000
Environmental Working Group
-
$13,566
Everglades Trust
-
$120,000
Fort Peck Lake Assn
-
$0
Friends of the Earth
-
$93,909
Friends of the River
-
$0
Heritage Conservancy
-
$20,000
Highlands Coalition
-
$80,000
ID Conservation League
-
$20,000
Indian Head Defense Alliance
-
$140,000
International Arid Lands Consortium
-
$40,000
Interstate Council on Water Policy
-
$20,000
Intl Assn of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
-
$230,000
Land Trust Alliance
-
$57,707
League of Conservation Voters
-
$40,000
National Audobon Society
-
$40,000
National Environmental Trust
-
$223,301
National Parks Conservation Assn
-
$127,000
National Wildlife Federation
-
$280,000
Natural Resources Defense Council
-
$820,000
Nature Conservancy
-
$120,000
Nature Conservancy/Arizona
Nature Conservancy
$10,000
Northern Forest Alliance
-
$80,000
Ocean Conservancy
-
$20,000
Operation Clean Air
-
$20,000
Oregon Water Resources Congress
-
$20,000
Pew Center On Global Climate Change
-
$11,000
Piedmont Environmental Council
-
$80,000
Prince William Sound RCAC
-
$0
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
-
$40,000
Responsible Environmental Solutions
-
$60,000
Responsible Industry for a Sound Enviro
-
$60,000
Restore America’s Estuaries
-
$40,000
Save America’s Forests
-
$0
Save the Bay
-
$80,000
Scenic America
-
$0
Sierra Club
-
$171,000
Six Agency Cmte
-
$20,000
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
-
$80,000
TCE Issues Group
-
$20,000
Trout Unlimited
-
$350,000
WateReuse Assn of California
-
$40,000
Wilderness Society
-
$407,000
World Wildlife Fund
-
$480,000
Yakima Basin Storage Alliance
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results…
BTW, if your source is so sure of the authenticity of the letter that was uncovered, why no link?
“Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results:”
Exactly my point. I have a hard time believing either side of this issue. Even “science” is influenced by the weight of gold.
#60 AKD: Very, very sad. AKD you blather about science, but you can’t be bothered with a real discussion of science (like the real science about CO2 I posted). Instead you trumpet concensus (of one side) then completely dismiss concensus on the other side.
You won’t address the issue of the Kyoto Protocol fraud, probably because that one simple, stark example puts the lie to the fundamental basis of your wonderful earth warming political promoters. The obvious fraud of that one simple example is a dagger to the heart of the “integrity” of your side. You won’t even dismiss it; you just simply ignore it.
You are a pathetic kool-aid drinker, a shill for the DGlobal Warming fraud industry, or a combo. I’m telling you that this doesn’t fly here at RV, the majority of posters here are capable of thinking for themselves and are able to detect fraud and bullshit. I don’t care what X number of scientists say, Al Gore, or any one else says, if they say 2+2=3 I can see for myself that there is something very wrong. Something you are apparently incapable of doing (independent analysis and conclusion).
I know now what your handle stands for:
AKD = Another Koolaid Drinker
Sad, pathetic, idiotic. I pity you, you poor fool.
test.
65. So, are you asserting that $20,000.00 in donaations over six years ago to a single member invalidates SEPP’s assertions:?
No. The fact that the satelite imaging that SEPP uses turned out to prove the opposite of what they claimed invalidates their claim. The donations merely call their intentions into question.
66. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a lobbists group to influence policy? It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, money is flowing from both sides and money is being paid to get the desired results:
If the issue concerned whether the democrats get money from the environmental lobbyists just like the republicans get money from the oil industry, your points (and all those links) would be relevant. But this isn’t the issue. I’m talking about the money that’s being paid directly to scientists with the intent to influence the results of their research. A move that Exxon now admits (along with the scientific consensus on global warming):
Exxon has…acknowledged that global warming is happening…that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay humans’ role in global warming.
Show me where the IPCC (and all of the other scientific organizations that have concluded that human caused gw is a fact) is being funded by the environmental lobbies. Do you see the difference?
69. you trumpet concensus [sic] (of one side) then completely dismiss concensus [sic] on the other side.
I do indeed describe the scientific consensus. By including the adjective before the substantive, however, I mean to exclude groups like the RVACS and the oil industry (with the exception of Exxon, which now seems to be in line with the scientific consensus). Consensus need not refer to unanymity—ask pcd for the term’s “entomology.”
You won’t address the issue of the Kyoto Protocol fraud, probably because that one simple, stark example puts the lie to the fundamental basis of your wonderful earth warming political promoters.
Was I supposed to address it? For the last time, I’m not talking about Gore and the democrats. I’m with Ted. They’re by and large as bad as the republicans. Neither the IPCC, nor the majority of the other scientific organizations that I’ve cited make reference to the Kyoto protocol (or any govt. program) in their study. If their results suggest that the KP should get a vote of yea rather than nay, however, so be it. My argument isn’t about integrity (not that you’d know anything about it), but the scientific consensus. A consensus that even those who have something to lose (e.g., Exxon) are grudgingly coming to admit. Hell, even the Bush administration accepts the IPCC report.
I don’t care what X number of scientists say:
How wonderful for you and your hilarious level of ignorance. Tell me Robert, when you get sick, do you just have one of your retarded pals drill a hole in your head to let the evil spirits out? Who cares what a doctor has to say, with all him’s fancy book learnin’. Robert knows when he’s right and he knows when he’s a-bein’ fooled!!
I don’t care if you have pet theories about co2 that you’ve cobbled together from different right-wing opinion pieces. The actual scientists have come to a different conclusion. I’ll listen to them, thanks.
Speaking of drinking the Kool Aid, one of the groups that funded SEPP was actually the church of the good Rev. Moon. This doesn’t have much to do with the issue, but it’s still weird.:shock:
“Speaking of drinking the Kool Aid, one of the groups that funded SEPP was actually the church of the good Rev. Moon. This doesn’t have much to do with the issue, but it’s still weird.”
Indeed, that’s very strange. Got a link to that- I’d like to look into it.
“Neither the IPCC, nor the majority of the other scientific organizations that I’ve cited make reference to the Kyoto protocol (or any govt. program) in their study”
AKD,
While I can respect the reasoning behind your opinions, inherent in this though is that the IPCC was created by WMO and UNEP. Both of these organizationa are United Nations based entities. While you may respect the motivations of the UN, I do not. They make the corruptness of US politics look like a children’s playground hissy fit.
I find it a bit disturbing that any organization related to the UN is supposed to be looked upon as either being “objective” or “principaled”.
Sorry, that just doesn’t sell me.
Still, I acknowledge the debate rages on- I just wish there was a single legitimate entity doing it. This is why I don’t care about it though, because to date there has been no such entity.
Here is an interesting document regarding the funding of the IPCC.
Intersting…it appears that Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the cheif of the IPCC, participated in consumer boycotts against Exxon Mobile.
Hardly seems like an unbiased scientist, does it?
Interesting: Dr. Pachauri is also director of TERI- an organization with a vested interested in the Indian Economy.
India? Aren’t they exempt from Kyoto?
Follow the monet trail kids…just follow the money trail.
TERI receives funding from 200 organizations in 43 countries. Anyone wanna make a bet how many of those are on Peejz’s list in post 66?
Here’s a link on the Moon reference. I can’t find the site where I got it originally, but this one has some of the same info.
Apparently SEPP was initially affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, itself linked to Moon. Here’s a link on the W.I.
I don’t really know much about Moon, though (besides the whole “moonie” thing).
As far as the IPCC being compromised goes, here’s how I see it…
The study was carried out by 2,500 leading scientists from 130 countries, and I haven’t seen any actual evidence that the UN attempted to dictate the results. On the other hand, Exxon basically admits to this sort of interference in the studies it funded (at least this is how I read their pledge to stop funding fringe groups to debunk gw, not to mention the whole $10,000 reward for debunkers). If the facts were ever on Exxon’s side, why the bribes?
According to the most recent statistics, 90-95% of scientists studing global warming have concluded that human caused global warming is a reality. Here’s a link. You’d be hard-pressed to find this sort of consensus in other areas of research. I assume that this is why Exxon and Bush are finally, grudgingly, accepting the data.
I’m sure that money’s changing hands all over the place, but I need to see something like a real link between, e.g., the environmental lobby and the 90-95% of scientists who have determined that human caused GW is (unfortunately) real. I agree that it’s good to remain agnostic on these things as long as possible, but at this point it looks like a case of trying to remain neutral in a moving train. Saying that we should do nothing also involves taking a stand.
My last post was written before Ted’s last few posts, but I stand by what I said. I need actual examples of attempts to influence the studies. If a consensus of 90-95% of scientists is going to be debunked, we need to see actual interfernce in the scientific work comparable to what we saw in the case’s of the oil company bribes.
Also, no one has remarked on Bush’s, or Exxon’s, acceptance of the IPCC’s findings. I never thought that I’d see this. Comments?
The link to the 90-95% figure is hardly relaiable, as it quotes IPCC scientist themselves as saying this. That’s like asking Krispy Kreme “Who makes the best dognuts?”. They’ll never say “Dunkin Dognuts”.
I see the money changing hands. While not in depth, it took little for me to establish a money trail here AKD. If I were interested enough in it, I have no dought it could be solidified.
As far as your assertion “I haven’t seen any actual evidence that the UN attempted to dictate the results.” I can’t disagree. But I take a bit different view. The UN is corrupt IMO. It is incumbant upon them to prove otherwise in this event. I have never seen them operate in a non-agendized method, EVER. My assumption is thus: that they always do. thgis is why I painted the picture between the ICPP and TERI- that is the vested interest for no just the good Doctor, but for the UN.
Ypou do know that the IPCC solicits funding independently from governements, don’t you? This makes a pretty starke case against the “independence” of the IPCC.
“Also, no one has remarked on Bush’s, or Exxon’s, acceptance of the IPCC’s findings. I never thought that I’d see this. Comments?”
I never want to guess the sorid motivations of any politician, but it usually involves money and power.
Here are the only claims I can find of the IPCC’s corruption. It’s not exactly what I expected:
It has also been noted by critics including scientists, that right-wing, pro-corporate, and related biases and influences have affected the IPCC leadership, most prominently in the strong lobbying by the Bush administration, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, from the IPCC chairpersonship, and to have him replaced by the much more soft-stated, mild-mannered, and more industry-friendly Pachauri. Link
There are many examples of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually under-stated them (this may be due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias, noted above, which is built into the IPCC system). Examples include a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers’ analysis was “applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2001 sea levels would be 0.5-1.4m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9-88cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. Link
In response to criticism by respected scientific experts that IPCC’s then impending January 2007 report under-states certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story acknowledged that “IPCC is a consensus-building structure.”
They’re too conservative?! What does this say about their results?
C’mon AKD- that’s a strawman arguement.
Given the IPCC is a UN organization and we all know they motivation behind the UN, isn’t this an entirely plausible situation:
IPCC solicits funds from China independently. Since China is exempt from Kyoto, they realize the added political preasures place of the US governement to join Kyoto as a result of their studies would only benefit China (and yes, India) in the world market place.
IMo, I see no reason to take stock in the belief of either side of the arguement here. It seems the enviromentalists are not beyond using scare tactics and internal political preasures to push their agenda. I also see a vested interest in the oil companies to push a “business as usual” composure. (which FTR, I completely disagree with but for other, BETTER reasons than the enviromentalist want to promote).
71- Actually the lobbyist money is very relevant and you know that, or we wouldn’t have Pelosi bringing it up before a committee would we?..I also followed the link to CNN money and all I see are references to a letter, but no letter..so based upon what I have read of Exxons change of heart?..well, let’s see, they invited people to a retreat, all expenses paid..looks like buttering up..let’s see if they change their policies..The article is almost laughable when discussing the fact that Exxons image is tarnished..and the negative press is hurting them?…
and the negative press is hurting them?
Apparently they think it is (regardless of how well they’re doing at the moment) if they’re claiming to accept the IPCC findings and pledging to quit funding the debunkers. There statements will make it slightly more difficult for them to go on with the same practices as before (though I’m perfectly willing to accept that they’re probably lying).
Then there’s Bush
I’m not claiming that there’s not an environmental lobby, or that environmentalists are beyond using scare tactics. At this point, however, where we stand is with something as close to a unanymous scientific position as we ever could have expected to get on this (extremely political but nonetheless ultimately scientific) issue. You can continue to raise doubts, but you can hardly claim that the two sides currently enjoy equally tenable positions. Maybe this would have been possible a decade ago, but not now.
Here’s a short quote from the article I linked to above. This was news to me:
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman later told a news conference that the report was “sound science,” even as he insisted that the Bush administration has always accepted scientific studies pointing to man-made climate change.
”As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is attributing to changes in our earth’s climate and that issue is no longer up for debate,” Bodman said.
:?:
86- see what happens when you take the time to do some research?:wink:
AKD is a hopeless brainwashed Church of Global Warming zealot. He’s ready to punsh the United States, put our economy permanently in the toilet, and turn over our money and our rights to a biunch oh hate-America international socialists on the basis of a hypothesis (promoted maoinly by people with vested interests).
Pretty bad management, imo. You know this ecofraud thing just may be what pushes this nation into another civil war.
“You can continue to raise doubts, but you can hardly claim that the two sides currently enjoy equally tenable positions. Maybe this would have been possible a decade ago, but not now.”
Of course I can claim that, as I’ve seen how both positions have been derived.
88. You know this ecofraud thing just may be what pushes this nation into another civil war.
Is it any wonder that I think you’re a total joke? Keep posting—it can only get better!! I’m hoping for something on the connection between the “ecofraud,” the Roswell crash, and the Knights Templar
89. I’ve seen how both positions have been derived.
No, you haven’t. You’ve provided some interesting links and you’ve made some conjectures. You’ve produced neither anything to rival Exxon’s admission that they’ve been funding fringe groups with the sole purpose of debunking research nor (more importantly) a rival scientific consensus. Without either, you’ve got a conspiracy theory and no positive account of the climatological data.
Regardless, I guess that the people who need to bow to the consensus (Bush and his cronies) have bowed. I’m not assuming that they’ll do anything about it, though…
“No, you haven’t”
Yes, I have. I understand the methodology of the UN in these situations. I’ve studied them in depth in the past, and each time I find nothing but a corrupt idealogy at the heart of what they do. They have coerced information in the past. You may want to take their word at face value, but I refuse to do so. I will not assume anything, and especially not anything involving the the UN, and that includes the IPCC.
Oh, and there is a rival scientific view. Beleivable? I don’t know. Like I said, I don’t care. It is impossible to tell, as this really isn’t a matter of science, but of political power.
Perhaps the IPCC should release publicly their funding resources. However, being a UN organization they do not do this. It took international subpeanos to uncover oil for food so that we could trace that money.
I think, that is interesting for all.
Gecco Logistics Company is looking for new candidates for the Guarantee Manager position.
We are the world’s largest global transportation company, operating in
more than 18 countries and territories and employing 20000 people worldwide.
Many Internet auctions and stores in the US do not ship the products
overseas. As the result thousands of customers in Europe and Asia are not
able to
access the large market and purchase high-quality merchandise at so low
prices. Our service is in the ever-growing demand. Today we have more then
80
merchandise managers on the territory of the United States and Canada but
quantity
of our customers increases and we plan to expand.
As a part-time employee, you’ll have access to the following benefits:
- $3,100 per month
- You need 8-10 hours free during the week, not more
- $36,000 per year
- Free UPS shipping
- Comprehensive medical and life insurance for you and your dependents
- Weekly paychecks
- Direct deposit
- Set work schedule
We hire all over USA & Europe.
If you are interested in our offer send the following data to our e-mail resume@gecco-logistics.org
- Your full name
- Your contact e-mail
- Your phone number
Thanks
I’m interested Nourbous! Please send me a $50,000 signing bonus immediately!