Website Real Climate is Associated with Al Gore.

I was just doing some more research on this website and appart from the fact that Mann is one of the directors of that website, and he keeps trying to defend his Hockey Stick graph, I also found that the founding of the website is traced to Al Gore. Who would have thought.

Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues"[1]. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate[2], and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications, "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[3], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Muaddib]

AL gore: the inventor of the environment.

I wonder why this is not getting more responses. I mean if it was possible to link, even if by a long shot, president Bush or Vice-president Cheney to any of the scientists who disagree that mankind has caused, or is causing Climate Change, there would be a revolt all over the forums....

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Muaddib]

So Al Gore, a prominent AGW campaigner, and one who has had involvement with GW for 3 decades, has links to a website which promotes AGW theory .......

Now, if he had links with a site which strongly refuted AGW, then it might be a story.

Knowing that Mann's Hockey Stick Graph was rigged, and it is flawed, yet it has been used for years as the proof that manking is causing global warming, and knowing that Gore knows nothing about Climate Change and he uses more energy than most households shows that both are in the controversy of Global Warming for the money, nothing more, nothing less.

I hope you're not suggesting Mann is simply in it for the money I actually feel a bit sorry for him - despite his reluctance to allow others to test his data. It wasn't his fault the IPCC used the Hockey-Stick to such prominence, or that people continue to go on about it. Or, indeed, that he made some errors. It's not as though no-one has ever done similar types of research before which has later proved to be less accurate than originally thought, is it

As for Gore - no comment!

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wonder why this is not getting more responses. I mean if it was possible to link, even if by a long shot, president Bush or Vice-president Cheney to any of the scientists who disagree that mankind has caused, or is causing Climate Change, there would be a revolt all over the forums....

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Sorry, I didn't see this thread earlier Yes, there would be Hell to pay if the President or Vice-President were linked to a A.G.W. skeptic site. Naurally, the believers don't agree, because yet again, the deck is stacked only in their favor.

...oops, accidentally deleted this post...

Mauddib quotes me enough below, I'll try to recreate it...

Sorry.

-------

Originally posted by Muaddib
I was just doing some more research on this website and appart from the fact that Mann is one of the directors of that website, and he keeps trying to defend his Hockey Stick graph, I also found that the founding of the website is traced to Al Gore...

...I wonder why this is not getting more responses....

Because, as usual, your leaps in logic aren't very compelling.

Is it your view that if you know someone, anything they do thereafter is "traced" to you?

Originally posted by Muaddib
I mean if it was possible to link, even if by a long shot, president Bush or Vice-president Cheney to any of the scientists who disagree that mankind has caused, or is causing Climate Change, there would be a revolt all over the forums....

This is where it gets funny. Why worry about websites, when you can actually control what the scientists can say?

Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science

Video & Transcripts...

But you find that less troubling than your "Gore" connection, don't you? :shk:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Knowing that Mann's Hockey Stick Graph was rigged

I've been quite busy lately... Mind showing me where you get this?

Originally posted by Muaddib
...yet it has been used for years as the proof that manking is causing global warming, and knowing that Gore knows nothing about Climate Change and he uses more energy than most households shows that both are in the controversy of Global Warming for the money, nothing more, nothing less.

Frankly, as a businessman, I can think of no dumber strategy to make money- particulalrly when you already have money...like Gore does.

Mind telling me what his ROI has been with this strategy?

Let's even assume you are right- it's all about the money for Gore. Does that determine with finality the question of global climate change and what is to blame?

It might for you... It doesn't for me.

Incidently, I wonder what Cheney is betting on...

www.kiplinger.com...]Dick Cheney Betting on Bad News?

Vice President Cheney's financial advisers are apparently betting on a rise in inflation and interest rates and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. That's the conclusion we draw after scouring the financial disclosure form released by Cheney this week.

-----

Best I can recreate... Again, sorry for the confusion... I think I got it right, though...



[edit on 22-3-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by Essan
I hope you're not suggesting Mann is simply in it for the money

I actually feel a bit sorry for him - despite his reluctance to allow others to test his data. It wasn't his fault the IPCC used the Hockey-Stick to such prominence, or that people continue to go on about it. Or, indeed, that he made some errors. It's not as though no-one has ever done similar types of research before which has later proved to be less accurate than originally thought, is it

As for Gore - no comment!

Making a mistake is one thing, but trying to claim that two of the Climate Changes which have been found in the geological record, every time, did not happen is not a mistake, it is fraudulent. Making a graph which does not show either one of these events so that people believe that "GLobal Warming/Climate Change" was caused by mankind is exactly what Mann has tried, and keeps trying to do.

The Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age did happen, and research ahs shownt that temperatures were warmer back then. Claiming the 20th century is the warmest is has been for 1,000 years or even longer is nothing more than a lie. Looking back in time we find another period not that long ago which was even warmer than the Medieval Warming period, and it was during Roman times hence it's name "the Roman Warming period.

The Earth is riddled with these events, from warming and cooling trends which changed the climate countless of times throughout the history of Earth.

Originally posted by loam

Because, as usual, your leaps in logic aren't very compelling.

Is it your view that if you know someone, anything they do thereafter is "traced" to you?

Right... and it is not strange at all that while Gore talks nonsense about Global Warming and makes a ridicule to what real science is, meanwhile the former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign is the founding father of an organization which provides "web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate", a site in which Mann is one of the directors and where he has been trying to give credence to his rigged Hockey Stick graph, and meanwhile all of them "are trying to blame mankind for Global Warming/Climate Change" there are some people like Gore who make money from this and there is no link?....

Originally posted by loam
This is where it gets funny. Why worry about websites, when you can actually control what the scientists can say?

You mean like this?

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...

The report just released is merely the 'Summary for Policymakers,' an executive summary of the main report that no one outside a select group sworn to secrecy knows the contents of until May.

Why would the main report and its summary not be issued together?

According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.
........................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
..........................
This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.

The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...

Originally posted by loam
I've been quite busy lately... Mind showing me where you get this?

The fact that in the latest report and summary the IPCC does not use the Hockey Stick Graph anymore after several scientists complained about the flaws of the graph, and the fact that through the graph Mann tried to bury the Medieval warming and the Little Ice Age events .

Meanwhile, the IPCC mobilized a large number of climatologists and meteorologists and published several impressive, voluminous publications, one after the other. In one of them, “Climate Change 2001,” for example, a figure that became known as “the hockey stick,” was used prominently in the “Summary for Policy Makers,” in which the temperature shows a dramatic increase during the most recent 100 years, after a slow decrease in temperature over the first 900 years. The nickname “hockey stick” was coined because the temperature-time curve had this sudden, upward kink near the end, like a hockey stick. (Since then, this particular figure has been discredited; the new IPCC Report (2007) does not include the figure.)

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

Originally posted by loam

Let's even assume you are right- it's all about the money for Gore. Does that determine with finality the question of global climate change and what is to blame?

It might for you... It doesn't for me.

Incidently, I wonder what Cheney is betting on...

I never said there was anything wrong about making money. People make money everyday, but some people are using the Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and the fear it brings to the ignorant masses as a means to make money, and as a political tool.

You bringing out Cheney making money from the markets really has no impact on this thread... This thread is about the people making money from the Global Warming scare...not about people making money according to what the markets are doing... people do that all the time...

This only shows you are grabbing at straws, nothing more, nothing less...


So keep laughing it up...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Essan
I hope you're not suggesting Mann is simply in it for the money

I actually feel a bit sorry for him - despite his reluctance to allow others to test his data. It wasn't his fault the IPCC used the Hockey-Stick to such prominence, or that people continue to go on about it. Or, indeed, that he made some errors. It's not as though no-one has ever done similar types of research before which has later proved to be less accurate than originally thought, is it

As for Gore - no comment!

Making a mistake is one thing, but trying to claim that two of the Climate Changes which have been found in the geological record, every time, did not happen is not a mistake, it is fraudulent.

Depends. But who has denied that they never occurred?

Making a graph which does not show either one of these events so that people believe that "GLobal Warming/Climate Change" was caused by mankind is exactly what Mann has tried, and keeps trying to do.

Mann produced a graph based on the results of his research. But would have rather he did? Doctor the results so that the graph matched with what you thought it should show? As it happens, the research appears to have been flawed and the graph therefore slightly misleading. But Mann didn't know that at the time it was published.

The Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age did happen, and research ahs shownt that temperatures were warmer back then.

There is proxy data (just like Mann's britlecone pines ) which suggest that some places were warmer during the MWP. This is collaborated by anecdotal evidence from the time. However we cannot say for sure whether or not the world was warmer as a whole. Indeed, it is now accepted that we can only say for certain that it is now warmer than the past 400 years, and probably 1,000 years. Note that no-one (well, possibly excluding Hansen) argues that the world is warmer than during the early/mid Holocene, prior to the onset of the Neoglacial cooling period.

Claiming the 20th century is the warmest is has been for 1,000 years or even longer is nothing more than a lie.

See above. No informed person has claimed that, only that - based on available evidence, it is probably the warmest for 1,000 years.

And whilst ignorant people continue to make such ridiculous accusations about lies and fraud against respectable scientists us sceptics will never get taken seriously

(Sadly there are a lot of people guilty of this, some of whom should - and do - know better)

I am a climate sceptic. But I will die to protect the integrity of science. Even when that science is - IMO - flawed. Emotive argument, Ad Hom attacks and unfounded slander will get us nowhere.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been hearing the following tedious catch phrases over and over since the IPCC summary report came out:

Carbon Nuetral
Carbon Footprint
Carbon Offsets
Carbon Credits
Carbon Tax

According to Mr. Gore and his groupies, we must have an immediate FREEZE on carbon emissions. The IPCC report stated that no matter what we do now we will experience at least 80-100 years of continued warming. This reasoning tells me that if we do nothing but freeze current emissions, warming will continue well past the 80-100 year time frame discussed by the IPCC. So if these dire prediction are true we must drastically REDUCE our carbon emissions.

Unless an incredibly effective and affordable carbon sequestering technology is developed, there is no way on God's Green (house gas) Earth, that we will achieve carbon emission reductions until all the oil, coal, and gas is gone. That's not ignorance, it's realism.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a carbon taxing, or carbon credit trading system that does absolutetly nothing to reduce carbon emissions. If you think all that carbon tax will be plowed into alternative energy programs, I think you're deluding yourself. If there was a technically feasible and cost effective way to use alternative fuels or sequester carbon from the combustion process someone would have found a way to make money from it, and we'd all be benefiting from these miracle technologies today. Wait...there is one alternative fuel that is very efficient and cost effective but the same people who want you to ride a bike to work, don't want those nuclear power plants either.

The funniest part to me is that the people who deny that the government is simply creating the biggest system of taxation ever conceived, are the same people who believe the very same government is out to screw us at every turn.

???


[edit on 3/22/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam

Because, as usual, your leaps in logic aren't very compelling.

Is it your view that if you know someone, anything they do thereafter is "traced" to you?

Right... and it is not strange at all that while Gore talks nonsense about Global Warming and makes a ridicule to what real science is, meanwhile the former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign is the founding father of an organization which provides "web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate", a site in which Mann is one of the directors and where he has been trying to give credence to his rigged Hockey Stick graph, and meanwhile all of them "are trying to blame mankind for Global Warming/Climate Change" there are some people like Gore who make money from this and there is no link?....

*Yawn*

The title you chose for this thread is "Website Real Climate is Associated with Al Gore." Then you claim, "the founding of the website is traced to Al Gore".

As I have already expressed, I hardly think that knowing someone rises to the level of "association" your thread title suggests...nor is there any credible evidence Gore had anything to do with the founding of the website.

THAT is the predominant point of my post.

For someone who rants and raves about the sloppy work of scientists, I would have thought your house would have been made of less glass.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
This is where it gets funny. Why worry about websites, when you can actually control what the scientists can say?

You mean like this?

Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

No. Like this:

Climate-controlled White House: The administration claims it wasn't telling scientists what to say about climate change; e-mails obtained by Salon prove otherwise.

...But Commerce's deputy director of communications, Chuck Fuqua, was happy to have a more politically reliable NOAA hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea speak to the press. At the time, Landsea was stating publicly that global warming had little to no effect on hurricanes. "Please make sure Chris is on message and that it is a friendly discussion," Fuqua wrote regarding a request for Landsea to appear on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." On the show, Landsea downplayed research that linked global warming with more-intense hurricanes like Katrina.

In an e-mail the week prior, Fuqua OK'd Landsea for another interview and asked, "Please be careful and make sure Chris is on his toes. Since BLANK went off the menu, I'm a little nervous on this, but trust he'll hold the course."

Same guy no?

There appears to be a difference between our respective views on who might be tampering with the science. Your burden of proof only requires an simple association...mine requires a little bit more.

Originally posted by Muaddib
...DR. TIM BALL...

Now let's look at Ball:

Timothy F. Ball: Inflates credentials

Ball and the oil industry

Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

...

Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

What else is he prone to exaggerate or hide?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
I've been quite busy lately... Mind showing me where you get this?

The fact that in the latest report and summary the IPCC does not use the Hockey Stick Graph anymore after several scientists complained about the flaws of the graph, and the fact that through the graph Mann tried to bury the Medieval warming and the Little Ice Age events.

Your words are "rigged" and "bury". Based on what specific evidence? Even if the data is all wrong, how did you get to fraud?

Here's a more balanced view: Hockey stick controversy.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I never said there was anything wrong about making money. People make money everyday, but some people are using the Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and the fear it brings to the ignorant masses as a means to make money...

So?

Incidentally, ignorance is a key component to a free market system.

Do you also mind sharing how pervasive this current abusive GW money-making strategy is? Real numbers please, not fanciful projections or wild-eyed claims.

Originally posted by Muaddib
...and as a political tool...

The existence of a political motivation does nothing to the substance of real facts...other than make them harder to ascertain. While outlandish claims come from both sides, the truth has to be somewhere, doesn't it? But you'd have me ignore the politics of one side in favor of the other.

Originally posted by Muaddib
This thread is about the people making money from the Global Warming scare...

No. The title and first post of this thread claim Gore is behind the founding of the website Real Climate. I have pointed out you have insufficient evidence to make that claim.

If you care to provide more direct evidence of Gore's “founding” and implied influence over the website, I'd be glad to consider it.

Originally posted by Muaddib
This only shows you are grabbing at straws, nothing more, nothing less...

How ironic.


[edit on 22-3-2007 by loam]

Now this is very strange, a bit chilling, but nevertheless timely.

Just a few hrs. after I post some comments about carbon sequestering, and profitability, and the financial aspects of hyping up the issue of climate change, I receive the following e-mail.

This e-mail does not to appear to be typical spam. I have a good spam filter.

Very stange.

From: Amy Cole [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:18 PM
To: #################
Subject: Guide to CO2 Capture, Sequestration, and Storage

I enclose details of our latest Guide to CO2 Capture, Sequestration, and Storage.

Over the last century, human activity had a profound impact on the environment. Fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, and other unsustainable land use practices have resulted in a dramatic increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. Most scientists believe the increase of CO2 emissions has created the human-induced climate warming conditions that are currently affecting the globe. If this trend continues, climate change will be the inevitable result. The long-term effects of global temperature change are largely unknown; however, adverse effects can already be seen in certain parts of the world in the form of droughts, increased severity of storms, and flooding, particularly in the poorer regions of the globe.

The natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is achieved through the earth's biosphere and oceans. However, mankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. Carbon dioxide was the first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration

Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen well over 30% from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to present levels of 375 ppm. Evidence suggests this observed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is due primarily to expanding use of fossil fuels for energy. Predictions of global energy use in the next century suggest a continued increase in carbon emissions and rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere unless major changes are made in the way we produce and use energy - in particular, how we manage carbon. One way to manage carbon is to use energy more efficiently to reduce our need for a major energy and carbon source - fossil fuel combustion. Another way is to increase our use of low-carbon and carbon-free fuels and technologies (nuclear power and renewable sources such as solar energy, wind power, and biomass fuels). The most recent alternative for managing carbon is carbon sequestration.

Carbon sequestration refers to the provision of long-term storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, underground, or oceans, to reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere. This is accomplished by maintaining or enhancing natural processes, or the development of new techniques to dispose of carbon.

This report on Carbon Sequestration addresses the probability of incorporating carbon sequestration (CS) as a viable market mechanism for sustainable development. The approach includes analyzing the utility of carbon sequestration projects as a mechanism for promoting sustainable forestry practices and environmental preservation, as well as addressing stakeholder interests in the implementation of these projects. The goals of this report are to provide the reader with an overview and conceptual framework of the issues and the problems associated with sequestration projects in general; and to discuss the economic and policy constraints and the challenges associated with the implementation of these projects. A related objective is to examine the methodology currently being used in this area and address the problems associated with leakages specific to forest-based carbon sequestration projects.

This report gives the reader a conceptual framework of the topic, and provides a detailed analysis of the linkages between carbon and climate change and the issues associated with the current treaties, specifically the Kyoto Protocol. Methodology is addressed through analysis of the various tools of measurement, monitoring and verification of carbon benefits. The report discusses the problem of leakage, compellance versus volunteerism, and the feasibility of the market approach to carbon sequestration.

This report also examines the flaws involved with the current approach and identifies some of the early success stories. The report uses the Bolivia Noelle Kempff Climate Action model as a case study of a large-scale carbon project at work in a developing country. The goal is to examine in detail what some countries are currently doing to link the various issues pertaining to carbon sequestration and sustainable development. This report is a complete guide to Carbon Sequestration

For a complete copy of this report click on:
www.researchandmarkets.com...

Pricing:

Hard Copy : EUR 351
Electronic : EUR 351
Site License : EUR 617

Ordering - Three easy ways to place your order:

1] Order online at www.researchandmarkets.com...

2] Order by fax: Print an Order form from www.researchandmarkets.com... and Fax to +353 1 4100 980

3] Order by mail: Print an Order form from www.researchandmarkets.com... and post to Research and Markets Ltd. Guinness Center, Taylors Lane, Dublin 8. Ireland.

Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,

Amy Cole

Senior Manager

Research and Markets Ltd

[email protected]

Subscribe: Click on www.researchandmarkets.com... You can subscribe free for regular details on new research in your sector.

Please note you are currently subscribed as ##########

If you no longer wish to receive our market research updates, please reply to this message with Suppression Request as the subject line, or use the link below

www.researchandmarkets.com...############

Is somebody playing games with me???

Originally posted by loam

*Yawn*

*Yawn* indeed...

Originally posted by loam
The title you chose for this thread is "Website Real Climate is Associated with Al Gore." Then you claim, "the founding of the website is traced to Al Gore".

Oh right... so because Gore can be "traced" to being buddies with the same man who tried to put Gore as president, and who also founded the agency which supports Real Climate and both of which, Gore and the folks at Real Climate, who resort to publishing and showing rigged data trying to claim that "mankind is at fault for Climate Change and there is no "association"?.....

The same man who helped, or tried to, get Gore as president of the United States is now funding an agency which supports websites which "try" to give more credence to what Gore is claiming with Global Warming....yet there is no "association"...

Riiiight...

Originally posted by loam
As I have already expressed, I hardly think that knowing someone rises to the level of "association" your thread title suggests...nor is there any credible evidence Gore had anything to do with the founding of the website.

This claim coming from the same person who posted a link to an article where Cheney is using the market to make money and you think that link disproved this thread......

Originally posted by loam
For someone who rants and raves about the sloppy work of scientists, I would have thought your house would have been made of less glass.

Me rant and "rave"?... naa, I don't rant and rave... i wonder how can anyone claim this when in a medium such as a forum you can't tell whether a person is being emotional or just to point.....

I guess i got to start every thread with a "Yawn"...

Originally posted by loam

No. Like this:

Oooh, you mean like this:

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Originally posted by loam
Timothy F. Ball: Inflates credentials

Ball and the oil industry

Are we now quoting every blog and everything that is claimed on the internet as "the truth"?....

Got a "credible" link that proves that claim?......

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]