Ocean acidification

[RollingThunder]

I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production.

Well of course you do.....because it is as idiotic as you are. An AGW denier cult climate blog done by a guy with no education or experience in climate science, just a MS in microbiology. Very typical denier cult pseudo-science set up to fool people as ignorant of science as you dimwitted deniers. I've been citing reports from the National Academy of Sciences and published papers from the foremost peer-reviewed science journals and you imagine in your cult-addled excuse for a mind that some random denier cult blog refutes the real science. LOLOL. You are very deluded as well as retarded.

Oooooohhh, Ow yet more insults?

Stop wimpering, you pussy. I'm just getting started on insulting you and your ignorant idiotic posts

Now Blunder you should know that were we to compare actual science your side would be declared the cult.

LOL. I'm sure you denier cultists tell each other that all the time (it's called 'projection') but it is as delusional as the rest of your myths. So no, walleyed, there is no comparison. I cite real science from actual working and publishing climate scientists and you have nothing going for you but drivel and tripe. All of the science academies of all the industrialized nations recognize the reality and danger of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. That is a fact. Virtually every working climate scientist supports that conclusion. Another fact. All you've got, you pathetic dupe, is half-assed pseudo-science you lift off of denier cult blogs. You know nothing about the science, you're just arguing for political/ideological reasons.

I notice that for all of your claims of having better science on your side, you are unable to actually produce any actual published science. Your delusion that your denier cult blogs trump the real science from the science journals is so pathetically hilarious that I can't stop laughing.

The only evidence you have is that which has been created out of whole cloth, or manufactured by altering data to reflect the pre-decided upon result. That stopped being science when the Catholic Church abandoned that particular methodology...but you wouldn't know that as you probably have never cracked a real book.
But you can go on with your juvenile insults if it amuses you, simple people have simple tastes you know.

Yeah, that's your denier cult myth, all right. Don't give up, cult-boy, hang on to those delusions as long as you can.

Timeless....I quite like that appelation(sic)! Thank you!

LOL. You like it but you can't spell it. LOL. I didn't call you 'timeless', BTW, I called you a 'timeless retard'. Big difference.

 

[saveliberty]

Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?

That is pretty worthless science your following there.

 

[Old Rocks]

“Ocean acidification is the new climate scare,” writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.

Ambler’s paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:

* Ocean acidification is the new climate scare and is being used as part of the “Climate Change” drive to force emissions legislation.

* Presentations to a Congressional hearing on “The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification” claimed ocean acidification is “real” and that seawater is “corrosive” to shell fish larvae. This is a deliberate distortion; indeed it is a lie.

* IPCC AR4 WGI states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

 

[Old Rocks]

Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?

That is pretty worthless science your following there.

It is pretty worthless lies that you are stating there. Jones, Mann, and the University of East Anglia have been exonerated on all counts, save being human are reacting angrily to the lies of the deniars.

This is what really should happen now;

Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers

It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.

 

[saveliberty]

Excuse me rolling turd, which side had a policy of supressing opinions in published papers, falsifing data and using weather stations with heat sources within 10 meters?

That is pretty worthless science your following there.

It is pretty worthless lies that you are stating there. Jones, Mann, and the University of East Anglia have been exonerated on all counts, save being human are reacting angrily to the lies of the deniars.

This is what really should happen now;

Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers

It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.

You just take the lies and move them to a different level huh Old Rocks? Exonerated? By groups with vested interests in the CRU being innocent. That is why you will never get your "damages". A real court would slap that suit down in a minute. It would also reveal more of the lies by the CRU.

 

[Oddball]

“Ocean acidification is the new climate scare,” writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.

Ambler’s paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:

* Ocean acidification is the new climate scare and is being used as part of the “Climate Change” drive to force emissions legislation.

* Presentations to a Congressional hearing on “The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification” claimed ocean acidification is “real” and that seawater is “corrosive” to shell fish larvae. This is a deliberate distortion; indeed it is a lie.

* IPCC AR4 WGI states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

FAIL!

 

[Oddball]

IPCC member rejects ocean acidification scaremongering claims:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

 

[gslack]

“Ocean acidification is the new climate scare,” writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.

Ambler’s paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:

* Ocean acidification is the new climate scare and is being used as part of the “Climate Change” drive to force emissions legislation.

* Presentations to a Congressional hearing on “The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification” claimed ocean acidification is “real” and that seawater is “corrosive” to shell fish larvae. This is a deliberate distortion; indeed it is a lie.

* IPCC AR4 WGI states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Hey what happened to you? After smacking you rather embarrassingly you hid behind socks and proxies for a few days. Then you decide your religious batteries are recharged enough to try it again?

Well hate to burst your little religious fervor bubble but..... The point still remains... Your CO2 ocean acidification fear mongering is busted flat.

1. YOU have yet to explain how in times of 20x more atmospheric CO2, the very life forms that would be hit the hardest and wiped out first by the lowered PH (claimed by your side) caused by increasing CO2, not only thrived but evolved.

2. YOU haven't explained how at most if man burns all the fossil fuels on the planet, he will produce 5,000 gigatons of CO2. yet it took 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere and over a million years to create the level of CO2 induced ocean acidification....

Dude your theory and all your bullshit is done.... its busted and shown for the fraudulent pseudo-science it really is.... You ran from this shit for long enough now douchebag.....

 

[westwall]

Trolling Blunder,

Yes, sadly it is a well known fact that geologists don't spell particularly well. But I can say that having been shot at by real bandits in Pakistan, barbs from a slackjawed halfwit such as yourself are a walk in the park! And I have to say a tad amusing as well! So keep it up I can use the laugh!!!

As far as the science you choose to post, for the most part you pick and choose that which suits you (kind of like how I chose "timeless" and left off the retard as a example) so when you are guilty of that you have zero credibility I am afraid. I can argue real science with you any day of the week and will happily do so, but if you choose to just toss mindless insults around instead....well have at it......simple folk are easilly amused.

I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production.

Well of course you do.....because it is as idiotic as you are. An AGW denier cult climate blog done by a guy with no education or experience in climate science, just a MS in microbiology. Very typical denier cult pseudo-science set up to fool people as ignorant of science as you dimwitted deniers. I've been citing reports from the National Academy of Sciences and published papers from the foremost peer-reviewed science journals and you imagine in your cult-addled excuse for a mind that some random denier cult blog refutes the real science. LOLOL. You are very deluded as well as retarded.

Stop wimpering, you pussy. I'm just getting started on insulting you and your ignorant idiotic posts




LOL. I'm sure you denier cultists tell each other that all the time (it's called 'projection') but it is as delusional as the rest of your myths. So no, walleyed, there is no comparison. I cite real science from actual working and publishing climate scientists and you have nothing going for you but drivel and tripe. All of the science academies of all the industrialized nations recognize the reality and danger of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. That is a fact. Virtually every working climate scientist supports that conclusion. Another fact. All you've got, you pathetic dupe, is half-assed pseudo-science you lift off of denier cult blogs. You know nothing about the science, you're just arguing for political/ideological reasons.

I notice that for all of your claims of having better science on your side, you are unable to actually produce any actual published science. Your delusion that your denier cult blogs trump the real science from the science journals is so pathetically hilarious that I can't stop laughing.

The only evidence you have is that which has been created out of whole cloth, or manufactured by altering data to reflect the pre-decided upon result. That stopped being science when the Catholic Church abandoned that particular methodology...but you wouldn't know that as you probably have never cracked a real book.
But you can go on with your juvenile insults if it amuses you, simple people have simple tastes you know.

Yeah, that's your denier cult myth, all right. Don't give up, cult-boy, hang on to those delusions as long as you can.

Timeless....I quite like that appelation(sic)! Thank you!

LOL. You like it but you can't spell it. LOL. I didn't call you 'timeless', BTW, I called you a 'timeless retard'. Big difference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.

 

[gslack]

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.

Still running from my post? LOL, whats wrong little fella? Got caught showing your level of understanding again?

 

[westwall]

You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there. So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!

As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there. So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!

As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.

How does the Vietnam war allow us to lead the life we lead? Didn't we lose that one?

 

[gslack]

You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there. So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!

As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.

Did you win that war too, as you did in Vietnam?

Was that before or after you lived off the land for three months in the Amazon jungle?

Damn, you must be at least 120 years old to have done all the things that you claim. And still you don't seem to know a thing.

How does the Vietnam war allow us to lead the life we lead? Didn't we lose that one?

Exhibit A.... Want to know why I slap you so much? Look at your ignorant and nonsensical post..... IDIOT!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You know my wife didn't believe it either till it was all verified by others who were also there. So yes I've had a exciting and fun life and unlike you I can back it up with pictures!

As far as Vietnam goes I lost an uncle there and my father was also there in 1968-69 and I thank every veteran I meet for allowing us here in the US to live the life we lead.

How does the Vietnam war allow us to lead the life we lead? Didn't we lose that one?

Exhibit A.... Want to know why I slap you so much? Look at your ignorant and nonsensical post..... IDIOT!

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[gslack]

How does the Vietnam war allow us to lead the life we lead? Didn't we lose that one?

Exhibit A.... Want to know why I slap you so much? Look at your ignorant and nonsensical post..... IDIOT!

That doesn't answer the question.

Are you really this ignorant or is this another act?

okay I will try once more.... When he said he thanked every vet he saw, it is for the simple fact without soldiers to protect us we would be vulnerable and then lose what we have...

Now remedial common sense for dummies is over negrep punk...

"That's what you get for cancelling my neg rep to amanda"-spidermantuba

What a juvenile.....

 

[westwall]

gslack you are of course correct and don't mind poor toober...I fear he has the attention span of a gnat.

Exhibit A.... Want to know why I slap you so much? Look at your ignorant and nonsensical post..... IDIOT!

That doesn't answer the question.

Are you really this ignorant or is this another act?

okay I will try once more.... When he said he thanked every vet he saw, it is for the simple fact without soldiers to protect us we would be vulnerable and then lose what we have...

Now remedial common sense for dummies is over negrep punk...

"That's what you get for cancelling my neg rep to amanda"-spidermantuba

What a juvenile.....

 

[RollingThunder]

Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

I ALWAYS FAIL!

LOL. It was obvious, Dufus, that you have no ability to distinguish rotten, biased, lying sources from reputable, trustworthy, verifiable sources but thanks anyway for confirming that fact.

The fact that is obvious to most everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together is that the lame-brained, pseudo-science "arguments", advanced by non-climate scientists on denier cult blogs because their crap wouldn't pass the first sniff test at any reputable science journal, are not valid. You half-witted, scientifically ignorant denier cultists can't see that because your position is based on ideology and not science so you buy into any old Bullshit that agrees with your politically determined preconceptions.

If you can't understand that the obvious economic/political bias of your sources means you can't trust them to not try to manipulate you head with propaganda, misinformation, spin, hype and outright lies, then there is little hope of you ever waking up to the facts.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8]

 

[gslack]

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

I ALWAYS FAIL!

LOL. It was obvious, Dufus, that you have no ability to distinguish rotten, biased, lying sources from reputable, trustworthy, verifiable sources but thanks anyway for confirming that fact.

The fact that is obvious to most everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together is that the lame-brained, pseudo-science "arguments", advanced by non-climate scientists on denier cult blogs because their crap wouldn't pass the first sniff test at any reputable science journal, are not valid. You half-witted, scientifically ignorant denier cultists can't see that because your position is based on ideology and not science so you buy into any old Bullshit that agrees with your politically determined preconceptions.

If you can't understand that the obvious economic/political bias of your sources means you can't trust them to not try to manipulate you head with propaganda, misinformation, spin, hype and outright lies, then there is little hope of you ever waking up to the facts.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8]

kill the messenger? nice way to use the science pal....

Oh and look who you used... Sourcewatch a known and proven left agenda and propaganda site.... Way to go all out for the reliable sources there smart guy.....

From sourcewatch's "contributing" page..http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Contributing

This site is built by ordinary wise people, like you. You don't need any special credentials to participate, and the Center for Media and Democracy which publishes SourceWatch has a long-standing tradition of skepticism about "experts" and whose interests they really represent. The fact that SourceWatch is open to everyone is what makes these articles ever-improving, as we review and build on each other's work.
Dive in. You can just dive right in and create or work on any article you like! You can edit any article directly, or if you want to add your thoughts, questions or comments about an article, you can go to the article's talk page (click on the 'Discuss the page' link in the sidebar or at the bottom of the article). You don't even need to be logged in to edit articles, although it is still a good idea to log in as this gives you access to more of the site's features and makes it easier to communicate with other users.

So they are like wikkipedia then..... uh-huh..... So anyone can contribute? Be they ditch digger or whatever? Well not really, it seems they only like your contributions if they are left leaning.... Here is how to see this all too clearly...

go to their "about sourcewatch page.... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatchurpose

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch, this collaborative, specialized encyclopedia of the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda. SourceWatch profiles the activities of front groups, PR spinners, industry-friendly experts, industry-funded organizations, and think tanks trying to manipulate public opinion on behalf of corporations or government. We also highlight key public policies they are trying to affect and provide ways to get involved.

okay so who is THe center for media and democracy? lets follow the link...... what? there is no link to CMD only to their front called PRwatch. So lets go there then....http://www.prwatch.org/

Going there we quickly and easily see they are a PR agency.... I mean really look at their list of projects.... They attack everything the liberal agenda opposes... Seriously.... Here is one way to look at them...

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/12-center-for-media--democracy

Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 310, Madison, WI 53703
Phone 608-260-9713 | Fax 608-260-9714 | Email [email protected]


Overview

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation....

Nice.... Care to tell us about reliable sources again rollingblunder?

 

[westwall]

Another false front for the corperations that profit from the continueing degradation of our environment.

Note that they primarily draw on the work of the known fraud, Monkton.

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

This is not the earlier, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute founded by George Carlo; see Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for the distinction.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

I ALWAYS FAIL!

LOL. It was obvious, Dufus, that you have no ability to distinguish rotten, biased, lying sources from reputable, trustworthy, verifiable sources but thanks anyway for confirming that fact.

The fact that is obvious to most everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together is that the lame-brained, pseudo-science "arguments", advanced by non-climate scientists on denier cult blogs because their crap wouldn't pass the first sniff test at any reputable science journal, are not valid. You half-witted, scientifically ignorant denier cultists can't see that because your position is based on ideology and not science so you buy into any old Bullshit that agrees with your politically determined preconceptions.

If you can't understand that the obvious economic/political bias of your sources means you can't trust them to not try to manipulate you head with propaganda, misinformation, spin, hype and outright lies, then there is little hope of you ever waking up to the facts.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF).[3] Exxon had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5], $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8]

And all of those amounts of money are a pittance compared to the BILLIONS that has allready been squandered by the AGW fraud perpetrators. Mann received 500K from the Obama stimulous package which the last time I checked was reserved for shovel ready construction programs.........I don't see Mann holding a shovel, nor do I see him hiring anyone to build something....other than maybe a new house. Jones and the CRU have received at last count 47 MILLION dollars from the US taxpayers to promulgate their drivel.

Should I go on? You post a site that castigates large corporations for spending a few hundred thousand dollars while blissfully ignoring the BILLIONS that are being pissed away by your pseudo scientists.....all I can say is that is priceless. You must look a lot like an ostrich.