|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The cash just wasn't enough for Sarah Palin.....
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Fact is whomever audited the report would have to be a respected climate scientist, and many of whom might be involved in hippy green activities, based upon their knowledge and expertise. Its fairly unavoidable. |
Now, this is true. However, the more important fact is that the climate scientist in question stands to greatly profit from the conclusions he gave. In any regular business that is a serious conflict of interest, and would disqualify one from chairing such an investigative panel. You can't overlook this matter.
| quote: | | I was under the impression that the audit wasn’t meant to be exhaustive, and related purely to data involved in the stolen emails debacle? |
No... it was meant "to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia," according the Oxburgh. That sounds all inclusive to me... and this decision was made well after several other things were uncovered. Yet, they barely dug at all.
| quote: | | No, im really not. I don’t care about climate change one way or the other. I have no vested interest. your interest is you feel the need to oppose everything you feel is from “the left”, not because you’re a climate expert, but because it suits your belief system. Virtually all climate change deniers are right-wing partisans without any foundation for holding the ideas they do. |
My interest is not simply to oppose... I argue against things I don't believe, and despise unethical business practice and lying politicans. This is something that affects me on several fronts, because of "Cap and Trade" is passed here, our energy costs are going to skyrocket, and a new crippling slew of taxes are going stagnate my company's operations.
| quote: | | That Himalayan issue is hugely irrelevant. This is what im talking about when I call you a partisan- one particular error about a prediction, and suddenly all the science in the world is suspect. What exactly did that particular error have to do with the veracity of the science that clearly shows a causal link between CO2 and temperature? The arctic ice issue you mention is completely wrong btw, if you think it supports your cause. Im about to have lunch now, so will be back later. |
I don't see how the Himalayan issue is irrelevant; it's just another example of a "scientific entity" (the IPCC) using speculation rather than science to frighten us into action. Instead of conducting science themselves, they used a single interview to make a major claim that within 25 years, "manmade global warming" will melt the Himilayan glaciers... it speaks to their credibility, so it is important.
As for your claim that there is a "clear link" between CO2 and temperature, how can you say that now that the famous hockey stick graph from which that claim is based, has now been proven a complete falsehood? I'm not wrong on the Arctic ice either (and have the data to prove)... but this is becoming tangiential; we can discuss that separately later if you want. I don't want to stray too far from the "follow the money" thing, because really, that's what it is and has always been about.
Enjoy lunch. I am going to bed. I'll catch up with your ass later 
|