Al Gore's mythical "consensus."
sasquatch2 @ Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:57 pm
Where better to discuss debate CO2 AGW than a politics forum. CO2 AGW has not scientific component. It is totally a political agenda.
Benoit @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:47 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Where better to discuss debate CO2 AGW than a politics forum. CO2 AGW has not scientific component. It is totally a political agenda.
The (political) forum is the place to debate about fundamental hypothetical consensus.
http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/~bsode ... ualhyp.htm
sasquatch2 @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:03 pm
link
Interesting link Bart posted on another thread. This guy who attacks Inholfe sceptic consensus on merit examines the merit of the qualifications of the esteemed IPCC's stable of "scientists".
It would seem that genuine qualified scientists willing to march to the UN drum are hard to come by.
Benoit @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:08 pm
Hello!? It was a report on human vulnerability.
$1:
We downloaded IPCC WGII's latest report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380 contributors to the report. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. There are economists working on saving that dying child!!!
sasquatch2 @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:15 pm
As per your quote from that link "It was a report on human vulnerability" only in that the qualifications of the British delegation of scientists was bogus as far as being climatologist in any form......was taking advantage of the human vulnerability of being useful idiots in believing the claims of the IPCC representing the best brains visa vis climate change.
It seems the IPCC think tank is as expert as SUZUKSTER on climate. They are merely a bunch of political activists.....
Benoit @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:21 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
As per your quote from that link "It was a report on human vulnerability" only in that the qualifications of the British delegation of scientists was bogus as far as being climatologist in any form......was taking advantage of the human vulnerability of being useful idiots in believing the claims of the IPCC representing the best brains visa vis climate change.
Climatologists were more implicated on another report.
sasquatch2 @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:09 pm
Benoit
$1:
sasquatch2 wrote:
Climatologists were more implicated on another report.
$1:
As per your quote from that link "It was a report on human vulnerability" only in that the qualifications of the British delegation of scientists was bogus as far as being climatologist in any form......was taking advantage of the human vulnerability of being useful idiots in believing the claims of the IPCC representing the best brains visa vis climate change.
Climatologists were more implicated on another report.
You are being obtuse or are hopelessly, deliberately ignorant......
Benoit @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:32 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
You are being obtuse or are hopelessly, deliberately ignorant......
You can forget about ever winning a peace prize.
PluggyRug @ Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:45 pm
Benoit Benoit:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
You are being obtuse or are hopelessly, deliberately ignorant......
You can forget about ever winning a peace prize.
Why?
Benoit @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:49 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Benoit Benoit:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
You are being obtuse or are hopelessly, deliberately ignorant......
You can forget about ever winning a peace prize.
Why?
Guess.
BartSimpson @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:31 pm
Benoit Benoit:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Benoit Benoit:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
You are being obtuse or are hopelessly, deliberately ignorant......
You can forget about ever winning a peace prize.
Why?
Guess.
Which response, of course, perfectly illustrates Sasquatch's original comment (in bold).
You are being obtuse.
Benoit @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:09 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You are being obtuse.
Bash Sin's son, bash!
PluggyRug @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:08 pm
Benoit Benoit:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You are being obtuse.
Bash Sin's son, bash!
"Sin" is sterile, wrong again sunshine.
Benoit @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:38 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Benoit Benoit:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You are being obtuse.
Bash Sin's son, bash!
"Sin" is sterile, wrong again sunshine.
Sunset you mean.
QBC @ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:41 pm
hmmmm