taichi is the eternal strawman supplier!
his view:
If you doubt CO2 drives the cimate, then you must believe humans don't cause any pollution nor damage the earth in any way.
what a retarded belief system. The guy believes his own strawmen are real!
APP - British Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
taichi is the eternal strawman supplier!
his view:
If you doubt CO2 drives the cimate, then you must believe humans don't cause any pollution nor damage the earth in any way.
what a retarded belief system. The guy believes his own strawmen are real!
More for the warmers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Why don't we get honest reports in America?
The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM
Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"
MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.
But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.
It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.
The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.
The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.
But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.
The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".
The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.
Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".
The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".
Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.
"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.
The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.
He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.
"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
'Common practice'
The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.
We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".
"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."
Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.
He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".
The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.
But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.
It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".
The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP
"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.
"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.
"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."
Credibility call
UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.
"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."
The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.
"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.
"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."
But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.
Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.
(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'
Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Why don't we get honest reports in America?
The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM
Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"
MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.
But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.
It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.
The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.
The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.
But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.
The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".
The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.
Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".
The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".
Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.
"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.
The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.
He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.
"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
'Common practice'
The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.
We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".
"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."
Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.
He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".
The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.
But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.
It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".
The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP
"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.
"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.
"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."
Credibility call
UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.
"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."
The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.
"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.
"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."
But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.
Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.
(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'
Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."
More for the warmers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Why don't we get honest reports in America?
The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM
Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"
MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.
But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.
It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.
The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.
The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.
But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.
The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".
The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.
Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".
The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".
Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.
"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.
The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.
He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.
"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
'Common practice'
The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.
We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".
"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."
Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.
He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".
The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.
But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.
It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".
The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP
"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.
"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.
"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."
Credibility call
UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.
"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."
The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.
"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.
"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."
But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.
Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.
(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'
Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Why don't we get honest reports in America?
The american media outlets have a fiancial interest in maintaining the scary scenarios meted out by governemnt. They love getting ready made content to frighten the masses into watching at 11PM
Which part of the business model do you warmers need help understanding?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8595483.stm
Climate science must be more open, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA
Professor Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact"
MPs investigating the climate change row at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) have demanded greater transparency from climate scientists.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.
But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.
It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.
The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Climate sceptics claimed that the e-mails provided evidence that scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hiding data and falsifying scientific evidence on global warming.
The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.
But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.
The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work".
The committee also said that the responsibility for data requests made under the Freedom of Information Act lay with UEA authorities, rather than with Prof Jones or the CRU.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
It said that university authorities should have supplied the data to those who requested it, referred them to where it could be found, or where appropriate, argued that the multiple requests were deliberately vexatious.
Instead, the MPs concluded, the UEA appeared to support a culture of "resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".
The committee chairman, Phil Willis, described this as "reprehensible".
Climate science must be transparent and irreproachable, the committee said.
"When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right," the report stated.
The MPs have urged the Information Commissioner's Office to make a formal ruling as to whether the university's failure to disclose information was a breach of the law.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby, a critic of the way climate science is conducted, said it was important that further inquires into the matter were held in public.
He also said he had no sympathy for Prof Jones and the avalanche of FOI requests to which he was subjected.
"Any good scientist always is prepared to reveal his data and his methods, and he does not need to have it extracted by FOI requests. It was only the concealment by the scientist that led to the FOI Act requests," said the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
'Common practice'
The committee was satisfied that, with regard to the sharing of data and methodologies, "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers," its report said.
We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
But the committee added that this practice could be "problematic".
"We consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work, including raw data... and full methodological workings, including the computer codes."
Mr Willis said he hoped that science would emerge stronger from the controversy.
He said that if the data from government-funded research were made automatically available, unless there were a good reason to keep it confidential, "the winners would be scientists themselves".
The committee expressed regret that its inquiry had been cut short because of the end of the Parliamentary term.
But it said that according to the evidence it had received, Prof Jones's e-mails did not reveal scientific malpractice.
It pointed to controversial phrases used in the published e-mail correspondence, including the terms "trick" and "hide the decline".
The report stated: "We are content that the phrases were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming
Graham Stringer MP
"Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.
"Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact.
"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."
Credibility call
UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton said he was "delighted" by this conclusion.
"We are pleased too that [this report] has dispelled and rejected many of the myths over the matter, while accepting that we have been taken to task on a number of issues which we are determined to address."
The committee stressed that the two other independent reviews that were currently being carried out into the science at CRU must not overlap, in order to avoid undermining the review process.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
One dissenting member of the committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer, said he was unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.
"There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming," he said.
"If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable."
But Dr Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, disagreed and said that scientific inquiries were, by their nature, sceptical.
Setting up oppositional positions within a committee tended to hinder its work, he said.
(hahhahahah Now that's rich! )
'Scientists are human'
Labour MP Doug Naysmith said he hoped the committee's report would prove to be a "corrective" to climate sceptic hysteria. "Before becoming an MP, I earned a living as a scientist," he said. "Scientists are human. Most scientists I know when off duty say things that wouldn't be said when writing a scientific paper. "E-mails are the modern method of chatting to colleagues around the world." The committee's report said it hoped future inquiries would be able to investigate further into the controversial issue of why Prof Jones had asked for e-mails to be deleted. Climate sceptics on the sceptic website Bishop Hill ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" Another commented: "No-one with half [a] brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up."
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Bottom line it for me, Libbie. That link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?I'm tired of doing your homework for you, Southie. You're not playing dumb.....and yet you argue with a willful ignorance that is apalling.
But hope springs eternal
http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?
I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act
Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.
But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.
So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Ahhh, the lastest generic accusation from intellectually bankrupt neocon parrots..."strawman"....pity you dummies don't know how to accurately apply a word to a discussion.
Here stupid, learn something
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=631699&postcount=46
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
READ, YOU WILLFULLY IGNORANT NEOCON PARROT! READ IT CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.....LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU SO READILY CRITICIZE SO YOU KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
That's what I do with EVERY link you neocon yahoos post...which is why I can easily deconstruct your BS...or agree with any valid points you may make.
Like I said before Southie, I'm tired of doing your homework for you. If you can't muster the ability to scan through, analyze and carefully assess information that you want to debate on, then any discussion with you is akin to arguing with an idiot who's proud of his ignorance.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This is so typical of you Libbie. First you post a link that doesn't support your position (in fact you indicate that the linked material is your position) and you do exactly what you accuse me of, which in this case is not doing your homework.
Again, that link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?
All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act
Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.
But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.
So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.
jesus christ ECON101! the fucking extra costs to business are GOING TO COST ME and everyone else!!!
Your strawman argument consists of conflating all persons who doubt CO2 as the driver of climate change with persons who say humans do not cause pollution.
You are an idiot
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
This is so typical of you Libbie. First you post a link that doesn't support your position (in fact you indicate that the linked material is your position) and you do exactly what you accuse me of, which in this case is not doing your homework.
Again, that link has about ten article summaries in it. What's your point?
READ the headings, choose the ones appropriate to the discussion at hand...and READ THEM. Then we can discuss FACTS. Or you can use the excuse of laziness and/or willfull ignorance and/or insipid stubborness to avoid an honest dicussion. Your choice.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Translation: the local crank with a tinfoil hat DARES not honestly address information that factually contradicts his beliefs and oft repeated corporate talking points, so he just parrots the same old BS....typical neocon cowardice.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Why should the the erroneous decisions of PRIVATE companies become the financial burden of the public? Why shouldn't the shareholders and investors foot the bill for BAD decisions that the public HAD NO SAY IN.
See stupid, THIS is the crux of the problem.....dumb toots like you scream about "socialism" and "fascism", yet happily bend over the chair for the coroporations that do you a disservice and then make YOU pay for it while they get YOU to defend them from gov't regulation.
Take off the tin hat....get an adult to explain it to you. And remember...Jesus wasn't about the gov't or corporations that pretend to be individual human beings, he was about the people.please cite the specific talking points you're refering to. I've posted, in addition to my opinions, a vast array of links chronicling the subject for the last two years or more. I suggest you start-a-searchin' buddy. I've linked reputable science, critical analysis, and obvious errors, omissions and lies of the IPCC.
WTF are you talking about, asshole?
taichi is so stupid he thinks business passing on taxes into the cost of their products and services is corrupt!!
He believes business should keep prices the same any increase in costs for their service or product should be absorbed by shareholders in the form of reduced return on investment. Can you imagine this guy's grades in econ 101? LOL what a total idiot
He believes business should keep prices the same any increase in costs for their service or product should be absorbed by shareholders in the form of reduced return on investment. Can you imagine this guy's grades in econ 101? LOL what a total idiot
But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.
Ice melt is not unprecedented. that's the problem ching chong. You are going by IPCC data. You better check the accuracy of anything the IPCC says BECAUSE THE IPCC DOESN'T FACT CHECK!!!!
Ice melt is not unprecedented. that's the problem ching chong. You are going by IPCC data. You better check the accuracy of anything the IPCC says BECAUSE THE IPCC DOESN'T FACT CHECK!!!!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Sorry Libbie, but in order to argue you must first present your argument. Don't expect me to guess at what it is.
(Note that, per usual, Libbie accuses The Southern Man of exactly what Libbie does himself: avoidance, stubbornness, laziness, and willful ignorance.)
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Stop acting like a wussy.....there's nothing "vast" about the Daily News link contents.....the 10 or less articles sited have clear headline definitions...YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT YOU FEEL IS MOST PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION (all are relevent).In the time it takes you to print your stall tactic bullshit, you could have read at least 3 articles....but instead, you take the cowards way out by waiting to claim MY OPINION is not up to snuff.
Get cracking, you wussy. READ the material, THEN we can have an honest discussion. Until you do this, you're just blowing mind farts.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
When this asshole starts referring to himself in the 3rd person, folks...you KNOW he doesn't have a logical or rational leg to stand on.
Bottom line: as the chronology of the posts shows, these corporate ass kissers made a claim to which I provided evidence to the contrary. Cornered, they use any excuse NOT to actively engage in an honest debate by REFUSING to read ANY of the material sourced. Given the amount of time they have wasted stalling and bullshitting, they could have read EVERY article listed on the linked site several times over! They could have chosen any one of the articles that is pertinent to the current discussion for review and debate.
But as the record shows...these neocon clowns can't think independently...so unless there's a ready made response available for them, they avoid honest discussion like the plague.
I leave Southie to repeat his bullshit ad nauseum...typical of the intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.