Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's funny to you that someone with a BS in Physics is called a non-scientist????
That's because having a BS in Physics doesn't have a damn thing in the World to do with being a trained scientist much less a Climatologist...LOL
This is what's funny. You wingnuts have no earthly clue what you are talking about.....LOL
Well I guess we'll all have to wait for the investigation.
You might want to go investigate just how many "trained" climatoligists (sp) the EPA has and if they were actually included in that working group.
Some interesting finds there.
Well I guess we'll all have to wait for the investigation.
You might want to go investigate just how many "trained" climatoligists (sp) the EPA has and if they were actually included in that working group.
Some interesting finds there.
Hey Tex ....time to wake up.....you lost the election.
There will be no "investigation".....LOL
We don't suffer fools. Inohofe and his right wing nuts can go stuff it.
Hey Tex ....time to wake up.....you lost the election.
There will be no "investigation".....LOL
We don't suffer fools. Inohofe and his right wing nuts can go stuff it.
Hey Crash, I just read a very interesting article that I had never seen before but it says what I like and you won't accept any part of it. Here it is because there are some here who think of the scientific part of global warming and you only think of the political, Algore crap.
Just as your post indicates. Both were working economists with the EPA not involved in Global warming science. Their degrees may impress you but they were not experts on global warming. Their report was not peer reviewed and produced new scientific data.
working economists with backgrounds in hard science.yes, i do indeed find phd degrees from MIT and cal tech rather impressive. please explain how such degrees fail to meet your moonbatty approval.
Quote:
This is simple. Wingnuts don't understand how scientific reports are produced.
awesome. why don't you explain the process to us?
i've reviewed 3 scientific publications so far this year. approved two, failed one.
how about yourself?
Quote:
They can't get the simple concept that you don't take opinion pieces from non experts not involved in the scientific field from which the report comes from.
there are dozens of references in the cited study. which ones do you consider 'opinion pieces', and why? do tell.
Last edited by uggabugga; 06-29-2009 at 11:06 PM..
Just as your post indicates. Both were working economists with the EPA not involved in Global warming science. Their degrees may impress you but they were not experts on global warming. Their report was not peer reviewed and produced new scientific data.
This is simple. Wingnuts don't understand how scientific reports are produced. They can't get the simple concept that you don't take opinion pieces from non experts not involved in the scientific field from which the report comes from.
A great example of why right wing propaganda is able to fool Millions of ignorants.
The issue is just too complex for them to figure out.
The Bush Administration put incompetent people in charge of the various branches of the NIH, the EPA, and other scientific agencies. Then they hired political hacks to "interface" with the scientists (i.e., massage their reports). Then they issued rulings and made decisions that went against the advice that scientists provided.
The Obama Administration is holding back a report by an economist (maybe - I don't trust their account, in general).
The funniest thing about this whole thing is that a man has a BS in physics and is called a non-scientist. .
of course. yet these same fools eagerly await each and every nugget that escapes algore's sphincter.
Quote:
They call people who don't know their butt from page nine but agree with the UN to get more UN grants scientists. We have a number of world renowned climatologists in this country who don't agree with Algore and his people so lefties say they know nothing. I love their thinking but wonder how they manage to believe themselves.
odd how they never manage to scrutinize the qualifications of the IPCC gang. probably afraid of what they might find...
Quote:
All this thing was supposed to do was get the EPA to discuss some of the newer knowledge from real climatologists who don't get UN grants to pay their salaries and they panicked and ran to the recently passed climate bill that will actually break up our nation. If it weren't so sad I would laugh at them
new studies apparently don't fit the agenda, and will be summarily sneered at and discarded.
this is the transparent science we've been promised.
The Bush Administration put incompetent people in charge of the various branches of the NIH, the EPA, and other scientific agencies.
name them.
Quote:
Then they hired political hacks to "interface" with the scientists (i.e., massage their reports).
names, please. links, also.
Quote:
Then they issued rulings and made decisions that went against the advice that scientists provided
wow. that sounds just like the current EPA under obama, except that you have failed to provide even a scintilla of documentation.
Quote:
The Obama Administration is holding back a report by an economist (maybe - I don't trust their account, in general).
funny that you don't mention that one of the authors is an evironmental scientist with a doctorate in physics.
why is that?
Quote:
And the wingnuts really can't see the difference.
the difference in the bush admin's EPA allegedly censoring reports vs. the obama admin's EPA doing the same?
well, no, not really. why don't you explain it to us?
Let's be clear - - -
Climate changes.
But do the current climate changes represent a reaction to human sources?
Remember, the #1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR (approx. 1% of the atmosphere) as contrasted with CO2 which is around 0.003% - 300 ppm - of the atmosphere... 100 to 150ppm considered to be the minimum to sustain life.
Panicked over CO2? - don't be.
There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for the projections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
