Harper must expose this treachery

[B. Max]

However there is one big problem. There is no proof of man made global warming, and why did they give the guy the boot.

He agreed there was global warming. He didn't agree there was increased hurricanes.

Everyone agrees there has been global warming and cooling throughout history.

[jdobbin]

Everyone agrees there has been global warming and cooling throughout history.

He specifically said man-made warming.

[mikedavid00]

Prove it.

Did, done but you missed it.

The only thing you've proven so far is that you don't like the facts.

I second that. Saturn, Jdobbin, and the Libs like their own emotions, but they don't like facts.

[geoffrey]

B.Max,

What are you disputing here? That the greenhouse effect exists? Or that humans produce CO2 emissions?

[jdobbin]

B.Max,

What are you disputing here? That the greenhouse effect exists? Or that humans produce CO2 emissions?

He'll get back to you. He has to check with the oil and gas industry for the proper response.

[B. Max]

B.Max,

What are you disputing here? That the greenhouse effect exists? Or that humans produce CO2 emissions?

I dispute that there is any proof that man made CO2 has any real connection to global warming or global cooling. There is a greenhouse effect but CO2 is minor player. So small that it can hardly be measured. Apparently the debate is not over, not that there has ever really been one. Nor have the merchants of doom and gloom ever wanted one. Their computer models which all the global warming scare mongering is based on don't even match current observations.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...global-warming/

[B. Max]

B.Max,

What are you disputing here? That the greenhouse effect exists? Or that humans produce CO2 emissions?

He'll get back to you. He has to check with the oil and gas industry for the proper response.

Is that what your computer models are telling you these days.

[jdobbin]

Is that what your computer models are telling you these days.

Here is the editor of the page you promote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ick_J._Michaels

"And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded "...the observations upon which PM [Patrick Michaels] draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make.""

The people you keep leaning on to back your claims are not credible.

[jdobbin]

Here is the publisher of the World Climate Report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fuels_Association

"The Western Fuels Association plays a controversial role in the debate over climate change. It has established a number of front groups, such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and has funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[1], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso."

Is this another case of shooting the messenger?

Who do you work for B. Max? Oil, gas or coal?

[B. Max]

Here is the publisher of the World Climate Report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fuels_Association

"The Western Fuels Association plays a controversial role in the debate over climate change. It has established a number of front groups, such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and has funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[1], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso."

Is this another case of shooting the messenger?

Who do you work for B. Max? Oil, gas or coal?

This is not about who works for who. Although that seems to be about the extent of the scare mongers science. That and the smear game. So if you want to play that game instead of countering the argument that arise from the facts, so be it.

Your source seems to be corrupt. I've often wondered about Wikipedia because they seem to have leftist slant to them. So I did a little checking. Seems there is a class action law suit. Or will be. Much controversy anyway.

http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2005/12/12/wi...action-lawsuit/

[jbg]

You got all this crap from a Christian website?

What's not in B.Max's post but ought to be is the ties of the "global warming" fraud to Maurice Strong, the currently on-the-lamb financier. Or, based on the thread title, Harper should be performing the kind of forensic work Frasier did on the sponsorship program on INAC, the prison system, the gun registry and other black holes.

[jdobbin]

This is not about who works for who. Although that seems to be about the extent of the scare mongers science. That and the smear game. So if you want to play that game instead of countering the argument that arise from the facts, so be it.

Your source seems to be corrupt. I've often wondered about Wikipedia because they seem to have leftist slant to them. So I did a little checking. Seems there is a class action law suit. Or will be. Much controversy anyway.

http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2005/12/12/wi...action-lawsuit/

Oh yes, Wikipedia is full of leftists. And so are any other sites who who point out that someone works for the Cato Institute and receives money from oil and gas.

You don't think that oil and gas might have an ax to grind when it comes to the environment?

So you yourself don't work for coal, oil or gas?

[B. Max]

This is not about who works for who. Although that seems to be about the extent of the scare mongers science. That and the smear game. So if you want to play that game instead of countering the argument that arise from the facts, so be it.

Your source seems to be corrupt. I've often wondered about Wikipedia because they seem to have leftist slant to them. So I did a little checking. Seems there is a class action law suit. Or will be. Much controversy anyway.

http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2005/12/12/wi...action-lawsuit/

Oh yes, Wikipedia is full of leftists. And so are any other sites who who point out that someone works for the Cato Institute and receives money from oil and gas.

You don't think that oil and gas might have an ax to grind when it comes to the environment?

So you yourself don't work for coal, oil or gas?

No I don't and what if I did. You don't get it. It's about the science not who one works for. On the other hand the dippers are into the taxpayers for millions on this one. With the only thing green about them being their envy of oil company profits which they want to get their hands on. So far the scare mongers have nothing to back up their claims.

[B. Max]

You got all this crap from a Christian website?

What's not in B.Max's post but ought to be is the ties of the "global warming" fraud to Maurice Strong, the currently on-the-lamb financier. Or, based on the thread title, Harper should be performing the kind of forensic work Frasier did on the sponsorship program on INAC, the prison system, the gun registry and other black holes.

Agreed. A warrant for his arrest should be issued to try and get to the bottom of it all.

[jdobbin]

No I don't and what if I did. You don't get it. It's about the science not who one works for. On the other hand the dippers are into the taxpayers for millions on this one. With the only thing green about them being their envy of oil company profits which they want to get their hands on. So far the scare mongers have nothing to back up their claims.

If you had any science that wasn't discredited, I might not be questioning where your material comes from.

At the moment, I'm left questioning anything you post. If you are simply a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry, I'd have my doubts on anything you had to say on the environment.

[jdobbin]

What's not in B.Max's post but ought to be is the ties of the "global warming" fraud to Maurice Strong, the currently on-the-lamb financier. Or, based on the thread title, Harper should be performing the kind of forensic work Frasier did on the sponsorship program on INAC, the prison system, the gun registry and other black holes.

Uh huh. Maurice Strong responsible for a world-wide conspiracy of scientists.

Let Harper issue the arrest warrant. What is he waiting for? In fact, let's start arresting scientists who disagree with the right wing.

[B. Max]

No I don't and what if I did. You don't get it. It's about the science not who one works for. On the other hand the dippers are into the taxpayers for millions on this one. With the only thing green about them being their envy of oil company profits which they want to get their hands on. So far the scare mongers have nothing to back up their claims.

If you had any science that wasn't discredited, I might not be questioning where your material comes from.

The fact is it hasn't been discredited. It is the scare mongers who have been discredited.

[jdobbin]

The fact is it hasn't been discredited. It is the scare mongers who have been discredited.

No scientist finds your hacks credible.

Your guy gets paid as a PR guy for the benefits of global warming.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/27/1738/42872

"Michaels is infamous among climate change scientists for arguing that global warming could be beneficial. In a 2004 editorial available on the Cato Institute website, he argues that "scientists exaggerate global warming [and] ignore its positive aspects." As an example, Michaels claimed that "global warming is likely to increase winds, several kilometers aloft, that actually destroy hurricanes," a pleasant fantasy that has been blown apart by numerous studies, including this one from the National Center for Atmospheric Research."

[jbg]

Uh huh. Maurice Strong responsible for a world-wide conspiracy of scientists.

Let Harper issue the arrest warrant. What is he waiting for? In fact, let's start arresting scientists who disagree with the right wing.

He's on the lamb from US authorities for tax fraud apparently, or maybe the Oil-For-Food scandal. Not sure on details.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jdobbin,

So you yourself don't work for coal, oil or gas?

The bulk of the people I know are currently in the energy sector, and none of them would say anything, let alone cite the sources, like those from B. Max. I highly doubt he would even be employable in the sector. I wouldn't beat your head against the wall too much more.

The greenhouse effect has been noted as an effect on the environment since the 70's, now it is taught in elementary schools. Perhaps when B. Max finished attending one of these schools, he'll have a little better grasp of how it works.

[B. Max]

The fact is it hasn't been discredited. It is the scare mongers who have been discredited.

No scientist finds your hacks credible.

Your guy gets paid as a PR guy for the benefits of global warming.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/27/1738/42872

"Michaels is infamous among climate change scientists for arguing that global warming could be beneficial. In a 2004 editorial available on the Cato Institute website, he argues that "scientists exaggerate global warming [and] ignore its positive aspects." As an example, Michaels claimed that "global warming is likely to increase winds, several kilometers aloft, that actually destroy hurricanes," a pleasant fantasy that has been blown apart by numerous studies, including this one from the National Center for Atmospheric Research."

I see we have us a liar here.

BTW, I reserve the right to take back everything I said here if Mr. Michaels ever authors a paper stating that global warming is impossible, because the exra CO2 simply falls off the edge of the planet before any warming can occur.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/singer.htm

The carbon dioxide-warming connection: cause and effect? It has become an article of faith that CO2 increases are the cause of the warmings marking the end of the ice ages observed in the climate record in the past million years. Now comes news from precise Antarctic ice-core data that while warmings and CO2 increases are indeed correlated, the CO2 increases lag the warmings by about 1,000 years. So much for the cause-effect relationship so dear to the hearts of global-warming promoters.

by idahoooo at 10:49 AM on 29 Jul 2006

[B. Max]

Uh huh. Maurice Strong responsible for a world-wide conspiracy of scientists.

Let Harper issue the arrest warrant. What is he waiting for? In fact, let's start arresting scientists who disagree with the right wing.

He's on the lamb from US authorities for tax fraud apparently, or maybe the Oil-For-Food scandal. Not sure on details.

The UN climate panel what a joke. Lets review their credibility.

: Oil for palaces scandal

A couple of genocides

Numerous sex scandals

Questionable accounting practices

Some of the worst human rights abusers countries and on human rights commission.

[jdobbin]

I see we have us a liar here.

BTW, I reserve the right to take back everything I said here if Mr. Michaels ever authors a paper stating that global warming is impossible, because the exra CO2 simply falls off the edge of the planet before any warming can occur.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/singer.htm

The carbon dioxide-warming connection: cause and effect? It has become an article of faith that CO2 increases are the cause of the warmings marking the end of the ice ages observed in the climate record in the past million years. Now comes news from precise Antarctic ice-core data that while warmings and CO2 increases are indeed correlated, the CO2 increases lag the warmings by about 1,000 years. So much for the cause-effect

And again you back up your claim with Steve Milloy, and his discredited website.

[jbg]

The greenhouse effect has been noted as an effect on the environment since the 70's, now it is taught in elementary schools. Perhaps when B. Max finished attending one of these schools, he'll have a little better grasp of how it works.

Actually, they taught back then that we were in a man-made Little Ice Age, because of three cold winters in a row, 1976-77 through 1978-9.

[jdobbin]

The UN climate panel what a joke. Lets review their credibility.

: Oil for palaces scandal

A couple of genocides

Numerous sex scandals

Questionable accounting practices

Some of the worst human rights abusers countries and on human rights commission.

Most of the scientists who report of global warming don't work for the U.N., are not paid by the U.N., don't have anything to do with the U.N.

That can't be said about climate change deniers and the oil industry.