Skeptical about global warming?

[MikeKirsch]

If the IPCC reports represent the consensus of the scientific community, why does it rely on a magazine article featuring an interview with an unknown Indian scientist who speculates that the glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035 with support from a publication of the activist group World Wildlife Fund as the basis of such a major claim?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

Why does it rely on a report from the activist group World Wildlife Fund as the basis of their claim in the IPCC report that the Amazon will be irreparably harmed by global warming?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

Why does it rely on a report from the activist group Greenpeace as the sole source of their claim in the IPCC report that coral reefs are damaged by global warming?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/now-its-greenpeace-reports-cited-in-the-ipcc-ar4/

(in fact both activist groups are widely cited in the IPCC report - http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/01/un-ipcc-activist-science-greenpeace-and-wwf-reports-cited-in-ar4/ )

And now, in the latest revelation, why does it rely on a paper written by a geography student working on the equivalent of his Masters degree and anecdotal evidence in a magazine for climbers?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

It seems that the science isn't quite what we were told it was. I thought peer-reviewed scientific literature was the gold standard. Apparently the IPCC is willing to accept sources that don't even meet the qualifications of the tin standard or the lead standard.

Meanwhile, even with all of his responsibilities as head of the IPCC and being on the board of directors of dozens of companies that stand to benefit from IPCC findings Pachauri has found time to write a racy novel with lots of sex:

[MikeKirsch]

Science at it's best! Don't question us, just accept and know we're right.

[MikeKirsch]

From the Reputation Report:

[aranhamo]

[MikeKirsch]

[casazza]

I'm glad to see that this monumental fraud is being exposed.

But, I am very disturbed that so many politicians wanted to spend (and many still want to spend) trillions on this fraud. They wanted to regulate and tax our economy to death (and many still do.) As I've always believed, this had nothing to do with climate change, but had everything to do with extending government's reach in an almost total manner over our entire economy and society.

This November, I will carefully be studying each candidate before I vote. Any politician who has supports or who has supported Cap and Tax or any of the other global-warming nonsense will not be receiving my support (unless they publicly state that they were wrong.) I cannot trust any politician with my tax money or vote who wishes to take away our remaining freedoms and what we have left of our prosperity. I would not vote for these people any more than I would vote for a Socialist, Communist or Nazi - or anyone else who supports such radical governmental control. People who support a fraud and an extension of government power such as this (even if well-intentioned) should not be voted into power.

Steve

[MikeKirsch]

Wow. When it rains, it pours!

[MikeKirsch]

[casazza]

What's really weird right now is Obama pushing for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. I would love to see more nuclear power plants. But, in the last 30 years, when have you heard any liberal or Democrat supporting building nuclear power plants? They have thrown up so many roadblocks and regulations and downright bans that it has become prohibitively expensive to build them.

Frankly, I just think it's a political ploy. I wish it weren't but what I see is Obama saying that he supports nuclear power, but there will be so many studies and delays and outrageous cost estimates, that nothing will ever get built.

My own idea for nuclear power plants is to come up with one plan for a reactor. Build the same one over and over - don't re-invent it each time one is built. Lease federal land to power companies to build them. That way, the power companies don't have to deal with state and local opposition to them. Don't give any loan guarantees or direct money to the power companies, but allow them tax credits when the project is finished and operating. The tax credits will be based on the amount of power generated. If the plant closes, the tax credits cease.

But if nuclear power plants are never built, it really doesn't matter. The U.S. has plenty of natural gas and coal.

Steve

[aranhamo]

[casazza]

Al Bore just bought an $8.8 million beachfront house in CA. I guess he's not too terribly concerned about ocean levels rising. "The ice caps are all melting and we're all going to drown!!"

I wonder how much this house adds to his carbon footprint? It's a good-sized house. Plus, you know how he like to keep his swimming pools heated. Plus, flying on private jets (it's OK for him) to get there. And, he'll have to add another fleet of cars (large ones, of course) to keep there. But it's alright because he's going to buy carbon credits from himself!! I guess he figures that a lot of people in Haiti right now aren't using up their quotas, so he'll use the carbon allotments of a few thousand Haitians.

What a hypocrite!!! And a fraud! And a crook - making hundreds of millions on this whole carbon credit fraud. He pushes the whole fraud so he can make a lot of money from it. Doesn't something seem wrong with that?

Obama just said, "At a certain point, you've made enough money." Does that apply to his good friend, Al Bore? Of course, it's going to be up to Obama's thugs to determine who's made enough money and who should have the excess taken from them. They've started the process already. I wonder if this is going to include his sympathizers?

Steve

[aranhamo]

[casazza]

[MikeKirsch]

Forget wind mills and solar panels. It's already too late. A majority of people will be dead in the next year and a half. From The Canadian: Canada's new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper:

[casazza]