Paul Driessen: Increasing Clouds and ...

Paul Driessen: Increasing Clouds and Thunderstorms For Climate Alarmists

There are 9 comments on the Townhall story from Oct 20, 2013, titled Paul Driessen: Increasing Clouds and Thunderstorms For Climate Alarmists. In it, Townhall reports that:

What a month it's been. Rejecting claims of looming cataclysm, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change issued Climate Change Reconsidered-II on September 17. This report by 50 experts documents actual planetary temperature, climate and weather in recent decades - and the ways alarmist scientists have manipulated data, graphs, ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Townhall.

LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1 Oct 20, 2013
"Rejecting claims of looming cataclysm, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change " is a clueless piece of propaganda, with no scientific backing.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2 Oct 20, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
"Rejecting claims of looming cataclysm, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change " is a clueless piece of propaganda, with no scientific backing.
LOL. What makes it "international?"

Funny stuff for the money spent.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#3 Oct 20, 2013
.. according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC [not the IPCC] report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#4 Oct 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report ..
As the Heartland group are industry paid propagandists, they are just making it APPEAR to be poking holes to anyone that cannot read the science themselves. That is the purpose of lobby groups such as this one. To confuse the public and therefore stifle Democracy.
B as in B S as in S

Savage, MN

#5 Oct 21, 2013
Actually the faithful believe there is only ONE correct way to interpret evidence. Every study is valid if it suggests CAGW. Every study that does NOT look for GAGW in the 'abstract' is flawed.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#6 Oct 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. What makes it "international?"
Funny stuff for the money spent.
You don't get it. These propaganda groups ALWAYS hide behind a name that sounds the OPPOSITE of what they stand for. I.e. The most regressive 'rust belt' propaganda will have a website called 'Americans for Progress'. See how it works?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#7 Oct 21, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Actually the faithful believe there is only ONE correct way to interpret evidence.
It is not a 'belief'. It the the result of the evidence as studied by very intelligent and well educated people.

Give them some REAL objections based on fact, and you will see them study that too.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Every study is valid if it suggests CAGW.
More backwards logic. Every valid study HAS backed AGW.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Every study that does NOT look for GAGW in the 'abstract' is flawed.
'Flawed' studies are the norm as no analysis or instrument is perfect. That said, they do very very well. But the problem of the unreliability of any SINGLE study is why it is the MASS of studies that confirmed AGW, not any individual study.

You have now demonstrated clearly that you don't know how science works or what the current science is. I gather that you are a religous nut that is offended that science isn't delivering the 'facts' you 'believe' in..

Tough. What are you going to do about it? Reality won't bend to you.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8 Oct 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it. These propaganda groups ALWAYS hide behind a name that sounds the OPPOSITE of what they stand for. I.e.[sic] The most regressive 'rust belt' propaganda will have a website called 'Americans for Progress'. See how it works?
LOL. You don't get it.

So you could not even answer my question.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#9 Oct 21, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Actually the faithful believe there is only ONE correct way to interpret evidence. Every study is valid if it suggests CAGW. Every study that does NOT look for GAGW in the 'abstract' is flawed.
What are you suggesting? That the science is flawed?

It is a simple precedure. Publish what your beef is in specific. Otherwise you are merely whining in the wrong place about something.

Do you have stomach ulcers?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Government seeks prison time for Weiner in sext... 20 min See The Light 10
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 29 min Pat Robertson s F... 12
News Anti-Gay Obama Graffiti Vandal to Spend 90 Days... 1 hr Imprtnrd 16
News Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio 3 hr Chicagoan by Birth 1,260
News Crime 44 mins ago 12:22 p.m.Rogersville pediatr... 3 hr Dr Spek 72
News Lewisburg pain doctor under federal investigation (Feb '13) 12 hr Knowstomuch 39
News California Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't decided yet ... 14 hr Wildchild 1
More from around the web