(11-24-2009 10:54 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  The absurd infatuation over a trace molecule continues,but really I think it is all about control over people is what they are really aiming for.

Bingo! "You WILL do as I say. Not as I do."

(11-26-2009 11:45 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  

(11-24-2009 10:54 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  The absurd infatuation over a trace molecule continues,but really I think it is all about control over people is what they are really aiming for.

Bingo! "You WILL do as I say. Not as I do."

The overwhelming majority of them are Collectivists, and ALL of them are Statists, so why not increase the powers of the State. Does it take away some of your Individual Liberties? Who cares: you have more than you need anyway. Besides, they just get in the way of Statists doing what they do best: increasing the State Apparatchik .

"so why not increase the powers of the state."

Bueaocrats and politicians that's why.
Are we not in a problem of runaway "politics", surely.
The comment that "CO2 is a bueaocrats and politicians dream" says it all.
We would be being taxed for living (under their strict control) - its that simple.
Whilst we are supposedly thinking "we are saving the planet"......

Someone please pass me a stiff drink, hold on, make it several.
Cancel that, give me the bottle, and don't ask I ain't sharing.

(11-27-2009 04:03 PM)Derek Wrote:  "so why not increase the powers of the state."

Bueaocrats and politicians that's why.
Are we not in a problem of runaway "politics", surely.
The comment that "CO2 is a bueaocrats and politicians dream" says it all.
We would be being taxed for living (under their strict control) - its that simple.
Whilst we are supposedly thinking "we are saving the planet"......

Someone please pass me a stiff drink, hold on, make it several.
Cancel that, give me the bottle, and don't ask I ain't sharing.

agreed. Reason why politicians are focusing on co2 is so they can tax people even further, but all under the name of 'saving the planet'. It is a win win situation for the politicians. they get to save the planet yet generate income for the gov't coffers. Pretty schrewd.

(12-04-2009 10:35 AM)mcclane Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 04:03 PM)Derek Wrote:  "so why not increase the powers of the state."

Bueaocrats and politicians that's why.
Are we not in a problem of runaway "politics", surely.
The comment that "CO2 is a bueaocrats and politicians dream" says it all.
We would be being taxed for living (under their strict control) - its that simple.
Whilst we are supposedly thinking "we are saving the planet"......

Someone please pass me a stiff drink, hold on, make it several.
Cancel that, give me the bottle, and don't ask I ain't sharing.

agreed. Reason why politicians are focusing on co2 is so they can tax people even further, but all under the name of 'saving the planet'. It is a win win situation for the politicians. they get to save the planet yet generate income for the gov't coffers. Pretty schrewd.

Eventually the nation collapses under the weight of such corruption.

Being shrewd depends on the voters not paying attention to the political games politicians play.Otherwise they could stop all the "save the planet and tax to save the planet" crap easily by voting the retards out of office.

Unfortunately to some degree the politicians are a reflection of the voters themselves.

Remember this person Margot O’Neill,whom I quoted in the first post in this thread back on November 13?

Quote:So is the IPCC really that kooky? Have thousands of participating scientists from around the world who've contributed to four IPCC reports since 1990 duped the world with hidden agendas and manipulated science? Have they all got it wrong?

I should point out that the IPCC's conclusions are supported in most countries by most major scientific bodies. In Australia that includes the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, to name a few.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP). It has issued four reports (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007) each asserting with increasing certainty that the globe is warming (now 100 per cent certain) and that human driven greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame (now 90 per cent certain). The next report is due 2014.

While it is called a 'panel,' the IPCC is actually one of the most ambitious scientific undertakings in history bringing together hundreds of scientists and other experts who are generally nominated by their governments or by non-government organisations (such as the Australian Academy of Science or the CSIRO). But the IPCC is also policy-neutral. Its job is to present the best science. There is not a single policy recommendation in its reports.

Well now much has happened since then,with the painful exposure of the many errors made by the IPCC panelists over the years.

I can safely assert with 100% certainty that what she wrote last year is very wrong.

After reading the above I vent the same heartfelt sigh of frustration.

When will those thousands of scientists who support the IPCC and AGW cite just one paper, one peer reviewed paper is all it needs, that shows conclusively, CO2 is capable of heating the atmosphere by any amount whatsoever?

Blind guesses fed into a multitude of models is still a blind guess.

This might be a good place to ask for a barrage of data over at Talk to Groupie:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtop...?f=5&t=515
Groupie who claims the name gropes appears to be a firm believer who asks all the stupid questions and when answered claims you did not answer his question or goes off on another tangent.
SST has contributed a bit and Groupie is good for a bit of a laugh if you let his ignorance go past or pour off.
I know derek has a lot of good stuff but want to use random sites as sources and use a random logic in relationship between articles. I found 20 links and some even to NASA and USCCSP.
Thanks guys.
I actually told Groupie I thought He/She/ IT might be the result of a science project gone bad. It is upsetting when your comments are distorted to give them some other meaning

I am Ravenna there.

SST:
I knew that and that is why EYE Returned!

(05-02-2010 09:04 AM)Mike Davis Wrote:  SST:
I knew that and that is why EYE Returned!

But Richard and others might not know that.

I think this fits under "Nutball"
McIntyre and Watts are condemning the actions of the Virginia AG and claiming Mann's actions were "not" illegal. Or as McIntyre said Mann was guilty of doing phrenology readings and claiming science. Insert a link to phrenology:
http://www.phrenology.org/intro.html
He claims those responsible were the funding agencies and institutions where Mann worked. (at least that is my interpretation)
While I agree the fault was the funding and University oversight. However by condemning the AG they are condoning Mann's activities
I take the position the AG is correct to conduct an investigation to determine if and who may have defrauded the state. It is important to understand (Which McIntyre did not) That the AG is limited to investigations involving state monies only. The investigation should have been the responsibility of the US Department of Justice because the fraud (If it does exist) is on a national scale rather than merely state.
The institutions took the aggressive defensive position of attacking those who questioned their actions.