I mean, just who would agree to this?

"Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;"

Yep, it is quite clear from this list that they must ALL 707 of them be in the pay of Big Oil.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62

..and, frankly, just what has this question got to do with anything?

“How much of the thermal radiation energy from the Earth in the band centred on the 14.77micron wavelength that is resonant with the vibrational mode of CO2 has already been affected by the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and how much energy remains to be affected?”

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4390

Just who does he think he is asking hard questions like that?


And these cherry-pickers are really getting too much:

"It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4393


Yep. My boy (aged 5) has told me, today, that cars and factories make the planet "sad".

How could I disagree with a 5-year old?

[/sarc off]

;)

Nickbat wrote on 18. Nov 2009 at 23:50:

I mean, just who would agree to this? "Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method; Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life; Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false; Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;" Yep, it is quite clear from this list that they must ALL be in the pay of Big Oil. http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62 ..and, frankly, just what has this question got to do with anything? “How much of the thermal radiation energy from the Earth in the band centred on the 14.77micron wavelength that is resonant with the vibrational mode of CO2 has already been affected by the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and how much energy remains to be affected?” http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4390 Just who does he think he is asking hard questions like that? And these cherry-pickers are really getting too much: "It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data." http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4393 Yep. My boy (aged 5) has told me, today, that cars and factories make the planet "sad".How could I disagree with a 5-year old? [/sarc off] ;)

Perhaps the most disturbing and unforgivable aspect of this evangelistic fervour concerning 'CO2 'related climate change.

Desperate Den wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:09:

Perhaps the most disturbing and unforgivable aspect of this evangelistic fervour concerning 'CO2 'related climate change.

"Give me a child until he is 7, and I will give you the man."
Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225832.700-give-me-a-child.html

Nickbat wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:16:

Desperate Den wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:09: Perhaps the most disturbing and unforgivable aspect of this evangelistic fervour concerning 'CO2 'related climate change. "Give me a child until he is 7, and I will give you the man." Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225832.700-give-me-a-child.html

Exactly Nick and as many can testify the end result was - and will always be - far from that envisioned and depended, in great measure, on abuse and indoctrination for its success.

Desperate Den wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:26:

Nickbat wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:16: Desperate Den wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 00:09: Perhaps the most disturbing and unforgivable aspect of this evangelistic fervour concerning 'CO2 'related climate change. "Give me a child until he is 7, and I will give you the man." Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225832.700-give-me-a-child.html Exactly Nick and as many can testify the end result was - and will always be - far from that envisioned and depended, in great measure, on abuse and indoctrination for its success.

And look what the wrethed Jesuits did to other religions, cultures & Alter Boys! ;)

yawn  8-)

Banjax wrote on 19. Nov 2009 at 11:51:

yawn  8-)

:o