Thursday June 4, 2009, 9:12 am
Well, what is the cost of NOT passing cap and trade or some other form of pollution control laws? There are already massive human costs underway -- there was a study done recently in which over 100 Syrian villages were abandoned because of global warming. But don't take my word for it -- go to science sites like Real Climate and Science and Scientific American and New Scientist and read what real scientists have to say about climate change. Don't just read what political ideologues tell you.

And as for the site that you suggest, we tried their ideas for the last eight years -- the end result was endless warfare, mind-boggling deficits, businesses failing, GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy, and many people done out of their life savings. And the last time these people were in power, the end result was the Great Depression.

Thursday June 4, 2009, 9:24 am
Drought in Syria has been happening for thousands of years and has nothing to do with the 3% of CO2 that humans add to the atmosphere.

You have allowed yourself to be lied to and manipulated.

Real Climate was put together by an ad agency to cover the fact that the "science" of "Global WarmingZ" was facked.

New Scientist and Scientific American were bought by Ruppert Murdoch a few years back and their long time editors fired because they would not go along with the AGW scam.

Try these sites for real information from real scientists with integrity.

http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Thursday June 4, 2009, 9:51 am
Really? Who has been telling you that? First of all, New Scientist is not owned by Murdoch; they are owned by Reed Business Information Systems. And Scientific American is its own company and has been for the last 150 years. Next, I would like to know who has been telling you that Real Climate was somehow "put together by an ad agency?"

Thursday June 4, 2009, 9:53 am
Thatword was meant to be FAKED.

The infamous graph which Al Gore used in his moved was the product of deliberately manipulated data to try to disappear the much warmer and longer lasting Medieval Warm Period.

"The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth's climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest."
McKitrick: What the Hockey Stick Debate is About?
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

The data was gone over by two committees of statisticians which found that the "Hockey Stick" was a product of "poor methodology"

The Wegman and North Reports for NewbiesIn recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been "thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal"; that "other professionals in the field who also have "looked in great detail at the problem at hand" and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being "valid and relevant", they instead have found them to be "without statistical and climatological merit"; that CA "fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing". See for example here

Omitted in these references are the fact that the people described as "climatologists published in a credible journal" or "professionals in the field" are none other than Wahl and Ammann, serial coauthors with Michael Mann, students of Mann, who are not independent of the controversy. Indeed, they largely use (without citation or attribution or even acknowledgment to Michael Mann) arguments originally published at realclimate (and already responded to in MM 2005b(EE). Aside from their lack of independence, neither Ammann nor Wahl qualify as statistical authorities. Ammann did his undergraduate work in geology; Wahl in divinity. While this does not exclude them from having potential insight in the matter, it is evidence that one should not necessarily expect a sure grasp of mathematical and statistical issues and that their conclusions cannot be relied upon uncritically, even if Stephen Schneider accepted their article.

Readers interested in a third party view of the matter are far better off consulting the North Report, the Wegman report, (particularly) Wegman's Reply to Questions and Richard Smith's account of the 2006 American Statistical Association session. All of these individuals are vastly more eminent than Ammann and Wahl. Wegman, in particular, has been Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics and is a legitimate statistical expert. His comments on the Wahl and Ammann preprint are very acute and have not received appropriate consideration."
Read the rest http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322