Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Tallent
There is not a single piece of actual science in that link. Not one. No peer-reviewed primary literature.
Baloney the science doesn't matter. You're talking about an issue that centers on science. If so much of it is corrupt and faulty, there will be plenty of peer-reviewed primary literature proving your case. Find it.
If you genuinely beleive that the global scientific community has engineered a 99% consensus as part of vast international left-wing conspiracy, then there is no hope.
|
There's just evidence in that article of gov'ts acting on faulty science. If anything, its a vast international right wing conspiracy. Business is going to get you and me to pay a carbon tax at the pump and every time we turn on a light. Goldman Sachs will be the house that skims a bit of every carbon trade and we'll all get GPS for our cars so we can put a meter on that too.
I gave you plent of evidence of *science* in this link right here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
And if you had been paying attention Billy, you'd understand why there isn't very much peer reviewed primary literature in this area of science:
- From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
- From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."
- From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003
"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
- From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003
"Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc."