US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace

[Gord]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.
So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.

HAHAHA...HAHAHA....what a LYING TWIT!

So what has your "top reseachers" and "'leading' science journals" come up with?

I continually ask for:
- ANY Law of Science that supports the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".
- ANY measurement, EVER, that shows that CO2 in a colder atmosphere can heat up a warmer Earth.

And what have you posted?....ZIP! NADA! NOTHING!

Why don't you tell us why that is?

It's because these Law of Science and Measurements DON'T EXIST.
----------
Hyper-ody has nothing to say, but delights in saying it.

AGW CULT MEMBERS CAN ONLY "BABBLE" THEIR AGW CULT-SPEAK.

Pathetic Human Garbage.

[Richard]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.
So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.

One more time for the dummies
http://www.iceagenow.com/

[Earthling]

There's one important thing missing from LessFact's higher education and that's scepticism.

[Richard]

Earthling wrote:

There's one important thing missing from LessFact's higher education and that's scepticism.

Sorry, I disagree it's just the education that's missing

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did AlGore learn anything about climatology?

He didn't. If you want to believe Al Gore or Burt Rutan, you may do so, but don't call it reason.

The test of science is to go to the SOURCE and the source is talking about the scientific fact of AGW.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
(Some) people believe Al.

Even you may get some followers but that is politics, not science.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
Having a dentist designing nuclear power stations is about as meaningful as having an ex-vice president lecturing on global climate matters.

True. Or an aeronautical engineer. Your point?

[Richard]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
.....
The test of science is to go to the SOURCE and the source is talking about the scientific fact of AGW......

There is no scientific fact of AGW

[Earthling]

Richard wrote:

There is no scientific fact of AGW

That's where LessFact's argument always falls flat, he's the only warmist here or anywhere who quotes the AGW hypothesis as theoretical fact.
There's a very good reason for that, he actually believes it is fact and claims he has actually spoken to, "climatologists," probably in a dream.

[Richard]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>That's where LessFact's argument always falls flat, he's the only warmist here or anywhere who quotes the AGW hypothesis as theoretical fact.
There's a very good reason for that, he actually believes it is fact and claims he has actually spoken to, "climatologists," probably in a dream.

Yer and his name was Nostradamus.

[Northie]

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
Then we have the problem of those scholarly and recently-outed liars: "Climate data? Oh, we made up stuff to make it look more like we wanted it to look when the real science didn't support our bogus claims."

What "recently outed liars" would those be? I believe you mean recently exonerated scientific leaders, whose studies have been reaffirmed by the world's leading review bodies. Read much?

[Uh Clem]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
What "recently outed liars" would those be? I believe you mean recently exonerated scientific leaders, whose studies have been reaffirmed by the world's leading review bodies. Read much?

For example, Yvo de Boer (UN global warming honcho who resigned), ClimateGate, GlacierGate, AfricaGate, and all the rest...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-...

Take your foot out of your mouth much?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
For example,

Names are not evidence. And you do not show any evidence of a fault that was 'outed'.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
Yvo de Boer (UN global warming honcho who resigned),

Stepped down to pursue other interest. Not 'outed'. Just tired of the jobs. U.N. personnel are temporary, being drawn from various countries to serve for a period. Nothing here.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
ClimateGate,

The same people that Northie pointed out were exonnerated of the false claims of fraud.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
GlacierGate, AfricaGate, and all the rest...

Certainly the WG2 report was somewhat poorly done. It relies on 'forecasting' and 'speculation' for the impacts of AGW on climate and there were certainly some items included without proper review. This is not fraud, so much as sloppiness and has been corrected.

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-...
Take your foot out of your mouth much?

Quoting such right wing trash blogs just shows that you don't read much science but get your 'opinions' fed to you. A true 'useful idiot'. Stalin would be proud of you if only for cannon fodder.

[Northie]

Uh Clem wrote:

<quoted text>
For example, Yvo de Boer (UN global warming honcho who resigned), ClimateGate, GlacierGate, AfricaGate, and all the rest...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-...
Take your foot out of your mouth much?

LessHype said it well. Face it, you're just a clown with an agenda--and a sucker for any "gate" Fox News happens to manufacture.

By the by, do you know who Fox's two largest stockholders are?

[tina anne]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Who is a top researcher in climatology is a much more objective measure than anything I could come up with. And no. My posts are not on my own opinions but that of the top researchers. Examine their CVs and you will find well references publications posted in the 'leading' science journals.
So far, I am still waiting for you to present evne the most cursory of science to support your empty claims.

But I have examined your top researcher and I am not the only one. Hence the reason so much of thier research is been found to be flawed.

Your version of top researchers has one criteria. They have to agree with your point of view. I doubt you could name one top researcher who disagrees with man made global warming.

As a result everything in and about your posts screams nothing but your narrow views and opinion.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
But I have examined your top researcher and I am not the only one. Hence the reason so much of thier research is been found to be flawed.

I didn't specify 'my top researcher' nor have you any claim to credibility to be a judge of the peer reviewed science.

[AntiTypical]

Starting to see a possible pattern here!

1 - Democrat president approved oil drilling
2 - Tesoro Refinery with 5 dead
3 - Worker's injured at TransCanada plant
4 - and the Gulf Coast Oil Platform sunk

... and little exposure for the anti oil tree hugger's?

Why are they so quiet? Government control of information?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

AntiTypical wrote:

Starting to see a possible pattern here!
1 - Democrat president approved oil drilling
2 - Tesoro Refinery with 5 dead
3 - Worker's injured at TransCanada plant
4 - and the Gulf Coast Oil Platform sunk
... and little exposure for the anti oil tree hugger's?
Why are they so quiet? Government control of information?

Hugging trees is not the point. The point may be the oil spill from the Gulf disaster is now larger than Rhode Island, continuing to grow as they try to cap the well, and headed toward the fertile fisheries of four states endangering many many billions in income.

Does offshore drilling make sense economically? Well, it is risk/reward and we seem to be hitting some of the 'risk' more than ususal. That said, it illustrates why some areas offshore should not be drilled. It also ilustrates that the 'laisse faire' regulation and emergency preparedness of the Gulf rigs should ( and should HAVE BEEN ) strengthened.

But as usual, people only wake up AFTER the barn door is open..

[AntiTypical]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Hugging trees is not the point. The point may be the oil spill from the Gulf disaster is now larger than Rhode Island, continuing to grow as they try to cap the well, and headed toward the fertile fisheries of four states endangering many many billions in income.
Does offshore drilling make sense economically? Well, it is risk/reward and we seem to be hitting some of the 'risk' more than ususal. That said, it illustrates why some areas offshore should not be drilled. It also ilustrates that the 'laisse faire' regulation and emergency preparedness of the Gulf rigs should ( and should HAVE BEEN ) strengthened.
But as usual, people only wake up AFTER the barn door is open..

That isn't my point!
My point is why are the eco nuts not being heard?

Is it because the administration is Democrat by label or is it media control by current administration?

... or is it just pure hypocrisy on their part?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

AntiTypical wrote:

<quoted text>
That isn't my point!
My point is why are the eco nuts not being heard?
Is it because the administration is Democrat by label or is it media control by current administration?
... or is it just pure hypocrisy on their part?

I don't get you. IF you are only talking about 'eco-nuts' could be that they are all in rehab. But only you know who you are labelling as 'eco-nuts'.

[zionist media czars]

999 out of 1000 scientists are convinced of the dangers of air pollution , global warming and inbreeding between the Madoffs , Blankfeins and Chertoffs .......... God's chosen people are becoming more paranoid , aggressive , greedy and imperialistic ........ Too many zionists control the air waves and prevent coverage of THE GOLDSTONE REPORT , AIPAC and the Kosher Nostra .

[Earthling]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I don't get you.

No surprises there.
That's probably one of your more sensible comments to date.