Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts

On Jun 20, 3:00 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
which AFAIK is a political system of government by
hypocrites.

Rather broad definition. Accurate - still rather broad.

R

On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
science but instead turn to motivation.

Quoted message said:

On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
science but instead turn to motivation.

Tom:

When people do try to explain the science to you, you don't listen or, more
likely, you just go into assault mode because it isn't what you want to
hear.

Ask yourself this though, in 1988, who was correct in predicting what
global mean temperatures would do over the next 20 years, Idso or Hansen?
Remember to state your answer in the form of a question.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
science but instead turn to motivation.

I read some of the pdf but didn't find much science
in it. There is a lot of cherry picking, more than
I can go around refuting without getting paid by
Exxon for my time. When I got to the point where
they talk about how we need to increase CO2 concentration
from 400 ppm to ~700 ppm in order to increase the
efficiency of plant growth to feed the projected
increased population, a great tiredness came over me.
(I don't think carbon is the limiting factor in how
much food we can grow. In a lot of places, it's water,
and carbon-driven climate change is likely to make
this worse rather than better in many of the poorest
places on Earth.)

Anyway, Tom, talking to you about science on RBR has been
proven to be about as effective as quieting a squeaky
door hinge by reading "Machinery's Handbook" to it.

If you turn every conversation into a farrago of
insults and distractions, you can expect people to
stop trying to talk to you. Eventually, we'll even
stop making fun of you, and then what will you do?

Ben

Quoted message said:

When I got to the point where
they talk about how we need to increase CO2 concentration
from 400 ppm to ~700 ppm in order to increase the
efficiency of plant growth to feed the projected
increased population, a great tiredness came over me.

And well it should. The number is wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/37j3cu

There is no such thing as a free, or even one available at 20%, 30%, 40%,
even 50% below our already unbelievable low cost, lunch.

--
Bill Asher

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 20, 12:00 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

I do find it entertaining how you don't want to address the actual
science but instead turn to motivation.

I read some

This is interesting especially when followed by:

Quoted message said:

of the pdf but didn't find much science
in it. There is a lot of cherry picking

You make yourself clear even to yourself.

Quoted message said:

That's a prime example of how, when you don't want to
answer the question, you gotta keep it short; the more
you write the more it seems that you're hiding something.

Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
which AFAIK is a political system of government by
hypocrites. Or maybe government by hypodermic needles?
I must of slept through that week in Poli Sci class.

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

Ben

Yeah, I know. I don't always trust them either, but that's another story.
There's plenty of trash in the dental journals; sometimes they declare
financial interest, sometimes they don't. Trash shouldn't be published.
In this case, I have no idea if the original paper is trash. Certainly
I don't give a rat's ass how CO2 Science "critiques" the paper.
If I had the time and interest I'd read the original paper. Which I might.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Trash shouldn't be published.

I'm going to put my trash in the burn barrel out back. To hell with
AGW!!!

I burn what I want to burn! I need to feel free.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:tJvei.3427$5h6.1810@trnddc05...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's a prime example of how, when you don't want to
answer the question, you gotta keep it short; the more
you write the more it seems that you're hiding something.

Also, they are exonerating themselves of "hypocracy,"
which AFAIK is a political system of government by
hypocrites. Or maybe government by hypodermic needles?
I must of slept through that week in Poli Sci class.

By the way, most biology journals and Science and Nature
now require the authors to declare any relevant financial
interests.

Ben

Yeah, I know. I don't always trust them either, but that's another story.
There's plenty of trash in the dental journals; sometimes they declare
financial interest, sometimes they don't. Trash shouldn't be published.
In this case, I have no idea if the original paper is trash. Certainly I
don't give a rat's ass how CO2 Science "critiques" the paper.
If I had the time and interest I'd read the original paper. Which I
might.

Instead of that just read this:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4