Harper must expose this treachery

[jdobbin]

Read my words slowly......

I never said the SCIENTISTS themselves were being funded.But the IPCC they work with is funded by the U.N.

So what?

[sunsettommy]

From Wikipedia on the Kyoto Treaty:

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

Description

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis

More in the link.

Exactly. 160 countries working together.

This is what you said that I responded to:

You act like the U.N. is some separate entity that does things on its own.

Kyoto was was 160 countries making an agreement.

I repsonded by showing that it was done....

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty.

I gave you the information that contradicted you.

[sunsettommy]

Read my words slowly......

I never said the SCIENTISTS themselves were being funded.But the IPCC they work with is funded by the U.N.

So what?

You had said:

Their work is not funded by the IPCC.

You need to read more. They are funded by their own universities, countries and foundations.

Never have I disputed you on their being funded by their own Universities,Governments and Foundations.

The IPCC they work with is being funded by the IPCC.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding me anyway?

[jdobbin]

Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty.

I gave you the information that contradicted you.

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid.

[jdobbin]

Never have I disputed you on their being funded by their own Universities,Governments and Foundations.

The IPCC they work with is being funded by the IPCC.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding me anyway?

And I say so what?

[sunsettommy]

Never have I disputed you on their being funded by their own Universities,Governments and Foundations.

The IPCC they work with is being funded by the IPCC.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding me anyway?

And I say so what?

A 747 jet flies over your head and you still miss it.

[jdobbin]

A 747 jet flies over your head and you still miss it.

Perhaps it is because you haven't made a point.

[sunsettommy]

Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty.

I gave you the information that contradicted you.

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid.

Who said this?

You act like the U.N. is some separate entity that does things on its own.

Kyoto was was 160 countries making an agreement.

You were replying to this from B.Max:

Yeah just like the UN has nothing to do with kyoto.

I showed that the U.N. was involved.You seem to resist that.I even showed you U.N.'s own words about it.

Remember this I had posted recently?

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis

emphasis mine

What about that U.N. link I posted at post # 70?:

Try doing research next time:

From the U.N.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...global&Cr1=warm

UN’s Kyoto treaty against global warming comes into force

16 February 2005 – The Kyoto treaty against global warming came into force today with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging the world to save the planet by adding to the limits on greenhouse gases and the UN environment chief stressing that many in the United States, the world’s top polluter, support the protocol despite the US Government’s opposition.

Under the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries are to reduce their combined emissions of six major greenhouse gases during the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 to below 1990 levels. So far 140 countries have ratified the accord.

emphasis mine

Maybe you need to slink away since your own words are making you seem confused.

[sunsettommy]

A 747 jet flies over your head and you still miss it.

Perhaps it is because you haven't made a point.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I was trying to CORRECT you post after post.

Man you are way out of it!

[jdobbin]

Maybe you need to slink away since your own words are making you seem confused.

You seem confused by what I meant in the first place. Rather than go over it again and again, I think I'd rather put you on ignore since you really can't seem to respond to anyone on this forum without the use of clickable faces and a lack of courtesy.

[jbg]

Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty.

I gave you the information that contradicted you.

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid.

And that "agreement" blew in spontaneously? Yeah right.

[sunsettommy]

Maybe you need to slink away since your own words are making you seem confused.

You seem confused by what I meant in the first place. Rather than go over it again and again, I think I'd rather put you on ignore since you really can't seem to respond to anyone on this forum without the use of clickable faces and a lack of courtesy.

Go right ahead and make my day!

The smilies are part of this forum and what is more you can use them in reply.

My continually correcting you ticked you off.That is why you are putting me on ignore.

[sunsettommy]

Yup it was under the direction of the U.N. that the many nations signed on to follow the stupid Kyoto Treaty.

I gave you the information that contradicted you.

It was 160 countries agreeing. You're free to think it is stupid.

And that "agreement" blew in spontaneously? Yeah right.

That is what he seems to say.

Maybe all the evidence from links (even the U.N. does not agree with him) I provided was too much for him and he is now planning to put me on ignore in response.

Oh dear!

[sunsettommy]

It just keeps getting better. Remember this.

FALSIFYING EVIDENCE TO WIN SUPPORT

"Accurate information" and "analyzing issues" are two of many seductive euphemism that deceive the public. Truth and facts matter little. What counts are stories and "scientific" arguments that evoke the "right" response: a willingness to submit to unthinkable controls in order to save the earth. For a glimpse at the twisted data used as evidence for environmental risks, ponder the following comment by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995".... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...c3-60343f461cac

"However, Christopher Landsea, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) National Hurricane Center in Florida, says the results are ambiguous.

"We agree the potential is there for hurricanes to get worse due to man-made global warming, but the big issue is by how much," he said. "

Seems that he agrees that global warming is happening. He's just not convinced about hurricanes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4751577.stm

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

Sorry but there is proof of man made global warming.It is easy to see if you honestly look for it.

Christ Landsea voluntarily left the IPCC.

[sunsettommy]

B.Max,

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

Without a single Coal plant in existence and other CO2 emitting sources.

Humans still produce CO2 emissions.

Our breaths.

[sunsettommy]

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.

A very misleading criticism they make of Micheals.

Try reading his published papers and then come back and tell us all about it.

[sunsettommy]

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.

Ah yes lets drag in the irrelevance on who funds whom.I could tell you about Hansens "corrupt" funding sources.Dr. Manns and so on.They are behaving like politicalized people in the game.I wonder why.

It is what they say about the Climate is what should be discussed.

Try that more often and maybe you have something valid to tell us.

[sunsettommy]

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."

LOL,

A well known green lefist environmental source.

A "climate change scientists".

There are a number of scientists AND historians who have said that some warming is good for us.

If you study history.You will see why they believe it.

[sunsettommy]

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.

What is a rebuttal?

[sunsettommy]

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.

You're probably right. However, it's no fantasy that the bulk of the financing against any and all environmental concerns comes from the energy sector.

What is a rebuttal?

You provide NOTHING!

The scientists have been buffeted by politicians and environmentalists over the issue long before the energy sector had much to say.

Try actual rebuttals instead and maybe you have something for us to learn from?