Great, in biological anthropology. That's about as relevent to climatology as a penguin is to the Navy Seals. Almost all of it wrong or misleading. Even the scientists he quoted had to go back and explain to politicians that he had misused and misunderstood the data -- for example: "Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear."
Why would you need to? If it is warming up naturally then the only thing that additional CO2 will do is to exacerbate the warming and compound the warming effect.
Like those bullshit liars at "NASA" and those bullshit liars at the "NOAA" and the bullshit liars at the "Defense Department."
Socialist Norway does have the highest standard of living in the world and per capita it is one of the richest nations in the world. And yes, they are crying about less snow. What it comes down to is that poor nations who haven't contributed to CO2 should receive benefits partly to motivate them to fix the problem, and partly to offset industrialization costs that western countries didn't experience during their industrialization. Western nations created the problem and it's up to western nations to pay for the fixes.
I think this thread goes a long way in explaining why so many people lose money in the markets. Specifically, they see what they want to see rather than what is actually there in front of them. When a politically conservative "patriot"/climate change denier points to Russian "findings" against climate change and simultaneously dismisses NASA's findings as well as that of his own country's Defense Department, then I am reminded of a trader nursing a losing position and searching for an indicator, any indicator, that will justify his hanging on to a bad trade.
Are you joking? You mean the only evidence that the whole man made global warming scam is a fraud is a 'russian' finding? It's really quite humorous indeed that you would say that in the same paragraph that you denigrate those who dismiss all information that doesn't comport with their own views. I'm still laughing.
You are exactly right. When I see a politically liberal "patriot"/climate change supporter point to obviously manipulated data as evidence for their claims, I too am reminded of a trader grasping at straws to justify staying in a loser.:eek:
Hell yeah bunch of snobby scientists, who even though they are probably paid more then what they are worth are pissed off at the world because they feel they should be making more money. Similar to newspaper reporters who find themselves making $40k at 50 years old and want to get even with those making the big bucks.
How confident would you be in a broker who tried to sell you shares of a company whose stock was underwritten by their investment banking department? Would you just swallow the sales pitch whole? Keep on grasping: