David Suzuki will not tolerate being questioned
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:52 pm
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:00 pm
We get closer and closer to Harper and Ridenrain!
$1:
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Wullu @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
I was not aware of the new forum rules that state I have to monitor constantly to answer your questions.
Washington Times
WSJ
PluggyRug @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:04 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
Well fIggy some rules....
You cannot ask others to produce evidence when your track record in that department is abysmal.
I'm still waiting for your response regarding the operation of a MKII Bren.
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:09 pm
And we get CLOSER to Harper and Ridenrain!
$1:
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
Now someone remind me: Where did Harper get all that money for the ads? Money which he hurriedly spent BEFORE declaring an election? And why did he spend it BEFORE? Was it because after declaring one, all expenditure must be strictly NOT from Oil Companies?
And hwacker remind me: how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:12 pm
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Well fIggy some rules....
You cannot ask others to produce evidence when your track record in that department is abysmal.
I'm still waiting for your response regarding the operation of a MKII Bren.
You cannot ask others to produce evidence when your track record in that department is abysmal.
I'm still waiting for your response regarding the operation of a MKII Bren.
I would have replied but I was waiting for your apology.
I'm still waiting.
Wullu @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:15 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
And we get CLOSER to Harper and Ridenrain!
Now someone remind me: Where did Harper get all that money for the ads? Money which he hurriedly spent BEFORE declaring an election? And why did he spend it BEFORE? Was it because after declaring one, all expenditure must be strictly NOT from Oil Companies?
And hwacker remind me: how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
$1:
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
Now someone remind me: Where did Harper get all that money for the ads? Money which he hurriedly spent BEFORE declaring an election? And why did he spend it BEFORE? Was it because after declaring one, all expenditure must be strictly NOT from Oil Companies?
And hwacker remind me: how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
So your first attempt got shot down in flames so it was time for a second attempt?
Any answer to the first?
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:24 pm
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
Wullu Wullu:
I was not aware of the new forum rules that state I have to monitor constantly to answer your questions.
Washington Times
WSJ
Washington Times
WSJ
Your reply would have been more convincing, Wullu, if you HAD produced a link debunking the story!
On the other hand, BOTH your links confirm the following:
a. ExxonMobil paid the AEI
b. AEI did send the letter to scientists.
ExxonMobil pretends to know nothing and says that it would have amounted to a bribe, but that is exactly the point. If you cannot bribe you route it through someone. In turn, AEI can say they were calling for research papers, just like NASA, but that the usual f*cking con crookedness, as we see here from cons all the time. They did not ask for research, they asked for 'research', namely, to break Kyoto, not to get the truth!
So go search again, you have not shown any debunking so far!
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:26 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
And we get CLOSER to Harper and Ridenrain!
Now someone remind me: Where did Harper get all that money for the ads? Money which he hurriedly spent BEFORE declaring an election? And why did he spend it BEFORE? Was it because after declaring one, all expenditure must be strictly NOT from Oil Companies?
And hwacker remind me: how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
$1:
The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).
Now someone remind me: Where did Harper get all that money for the ads? Money which he hurriedly spent BEFORE declaring an election? And why did he spend it BEFORE? Was it because after declaring one, all expenditure must be strictly NOT from Oil Companies?
And hwacker remind me: how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
Wullu Wullu:
So your first attempt got shot down in flames so it was time for a second attempt?
Any answer to the first?
Any answer to the first?
Sure, I gave it already.
Debunking your fake statement that the WSJ had debunked the Guardian story.
PluggyRug @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:35 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Well fIggy some rules....
You cannot ask others to produce evidence when your track record in that department is abysmal.
I'm still waiting for your response regarding the operation of a MKII Bren.
You cannot ask others to produce evidence when your track record in that department is abysmal.
I'm still waiting for your response regarding the operation of a MKII Bren.
I would have replied but I was waiting for your apology.
I'm still waiting.
OK fIggy I apologise.....now the answer please....
Wullu @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:35 pm
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
Wullu Wullu:
I was not aware of the new forum rules that state I have to monitor constantly to answer your questions.
Washington Times
WSJ
Washington Times
WSJ
Your reply would have been more convincing, Wullu, if you HAD produced a link debunking the story!
On the other hand, BOTH your links confirm the following:
a. ExxonMobil paid the AEI
b. AEI did send the letter to scientists.
ExxonMobil pretends to know nothing and says that it would have amounted to a bribe, but that is exactly the point. If you cannot bribe you route it through someone. In turn, AEI can say they were calling for research papers, just like NASA, but that the usual f*cking con crookedness, as we see here from cons all the time. They did not ask for research, they asked for 'research', namely, to break Kyoto, not to get the truth!
So go search again, you have not shown any debunking so far!
A. Exxon gives money to hundreds of foundations including PBS in the states. Are they schills of Exxon as well?
B. Yes!! Yes they did!! and explained it as well. I am not aware of any scientists anywhere who do what they do for free. Paying to have research done is not a bribe, it is a wage.
I could continue, but you are not interested in actually discussing anything, just increasing your post count, what with all your schizophrenic quoting of yourself.
Is that the only source you can find that agrees with you?
ridenrain @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:37 pm
Iggy, to celebrate you're delusion, I've changed my signature below.
If you were to search this forum you'd read tha I am indeed working for Mr. Harper and is evil overlord, the devil himself. If we are successful in getting a majority, we shall call about the end of times, as is written in the prophesys, and as a reward, I will get my hair back.
For indeedit is so unfair that so many are so ugly but have a full head of hair, when I am so beautiful but have little. Oh, well. You take the deals you can get.
ridenrain @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:39 pm
Actually, his walking out was how it was described on the Charles Adler show. It's still wrong but it's a small detail.
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:43 pm
Sticky4pIggy seems to think that this is a game of Calvin ball. Make up the rules as she goes along and then dodge, dodge, dodge.
$1:
how did you, being on welfare, spend so much last month?
Interested in how much you can get, now that your mom is threatening to kick you out of her basement?
Always4Iggy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:46 pm
Wullu Wullu:
Oh, I guess you missed the part where the WSJ utterly debunked the entire story about Exxon and the AEI?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
No, I have not heard that. Do you have a WSJ link to it?
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Why are you unable to produce a link? Did you get your story from Ridenrain?
Wullu Wullu:
I was not aware of the new forum rules that state I have to monitor constantly to answer your questions.
Washington Times
WSJ
Washington Times
WSJ
Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:
Your reply would have been more convincing, Wullu, if you HAD produced a link debunking the story!
On the other hand, BOTH your links confirm the following:
a. ExxonMobil paid the AEI
b. AEI did send the letter to scientists.
ExxonMobil pretends to know nothing and says that it would have amounted to a bribe, but that is exactly the point. If you cannot bribe you route it through someone. In turn, AEI can say they were calling for research papers, just like NASA, but that the usual f*cking con crookedness, as we see here from cons all the time. They did not ask for research, they asked for 'research', namely, to break Kyoto, not to get the truth!
So go search again, you have not shown any debunking so far!
On the other hand, BOTH your links confirm the following:
a. ExxonMobil paid the AEI
b. AEI did send the letter to scientists.
ExxonMobil pretends to know nothing and says that it would have amounted to a bribe, but that is exactly the point. If you cannot bribe you route it through someone. In turn, AEI can say they were calling for research papers, just like NASA, but that the usual f*cking con crookedness, as we see here from cons all the time. They did not ask for research, they asked for 'research', namely, to break Kyoto, not to get the truth!
So go search again, you have not shown any debunking so far!
Wullu Wullu:
A. Exxon gives money to hundreds of foundations including PBS in the states. Are they schills of Exxon as well?
B. Yes!! Yes they did!! and explained it as well. I am not aware of any scientists anywhere who do what they do for free. Paying to have research done is not a bribe, it is a wage.
B. Yes!! Yes they did!! and explained it as well. I am not aware of any scientists anywhere who do what they do for free. Paying to have research done is not a bribe, it is a wage.
Sorry, but you are confusing opinions with research. This was a call for opinions, not research.
Nobody pays for research by flat fees of $10,000 each, you can ask any scientist, if you come across one.
For research, you submit a plan and give a cost. Climate research can run into hundreds of thousands and even millions in costs, and cannot be bought with a flat fee!
I think ExxonMobil knew exactly what it was doing!