Peter Webb
6/20/2011 12:57:00 AM
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:967iu8Fg59U3@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> "SKD" <sherkd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:009006c0-859f-4b76-aed3-24392c956de7@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 19, 6:52 am, "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> Climate-change denial can be a rewarding hobby. Do you love
>>> conspiracy theories? Did you fail science at school? Then
>>> climate-change denial could be for you. It requires no financial
>>> outlay and almost no intellectual effort. Here are some hints to get
>>> started: * Deny that you are a denier. You are a sceptic or a realist.
>>> * If someone claims 97 per cent of researchers are convinced of
>>> man-made climate change, and no national science body disagrees,
>>> blame it on "a great
>>> global-warming swindle".
>>> * Say that most scientists think as you do.
>>> * Say that carbon dioxide is plant food.
>>> * Have a crack at Tim Flannery.
>>> * Say that it's getting cooler. If someone proves the past decade
>>> was the hottest in human history, say it's cold today.
>>> * If anyone demonstrates that you are lying or bonkers, wait a
>>> while, then troll out the same furphies again.
>>> * Fallback positions: (a) it is getting warmer, but climate is always
>>> changing; (b) we can't change the climate because we are weeny
>>> humans and the sky is really big.
>>> * The killer argument: "a tax on carbon is a tax on progress". Clean,
>>> never-ending energy - where's the future in that?
>>> - Steve Williams, Clifton Springs.
>>> =================================
>>> Reproduced here, from "The Age" (14/6)
>>
>> A good measure of moral ineptitude is one's inability to put greater
>> good ahead of self interest. I have wondered if reverse were to be
>> true. That is, climate denying meant being out of pocket. How many
>> will still deny it? A big fat zero. If science doesn't convince them,
>> they can FO.
>>
>> _______________________________
>> My skepticism about climate "science" has nothing to do with
>> self-interest, it has to do with science.
>
> **Really? Please submit a page-by-page scientific refutation of the 4th
> IPCC report.
>
Please send me one million dollars and get your sister to give me a blow
job.
> Pity the reverse is not
>> true; Flannery and many others are paid to be believe in AGW; but I
>> am not paid to be skeptical.
>
> **Flannery is not a climatoloist. He relies upon the expertise of
> climatologists. The real question is this: Why do YOU ignore the
> climatologists? What climatology expertise do YOU have to suggest that YOU
> are correct and they are wrong?
>
**Flannery is not an astrologer. He relies upon the expertise of
astrologers. The real question is this: Why do YOU ignore the astrologers?
What astrology expertise do YOU have to suggest that YOU are correct and
they are wrong?
> That the science has been perverted by
>> money is pretty obvious;
>
> **Indeed. I note that Plimer's unpeer-reviewed, completely discredited
> book on the topic in now into it's 7th printing. He is making shit-loads
> of cash by pandering to fools and idiots like you.
So, is he making more money or less out of GW than Flannery?
Did he get free trips to Cancun, Bali and Copenhagen?
> For some reason, a bunch of idiots have decided that a geologist knows
> more than all the climatologists and have filled his bank accounts.
>
Maybe because AGW is crap, and people want to see alternative theories.
> I don't see any skeptical scientists getting
>> all expenses paid holidays in Cancun, Copenhagen or Bali.
>
> **Of course. Guys like Plimer are making so much money out of publishing
> lies, that they can afford first class airline tickets to anywhere on the
> planet.
Cite?
> Other, like Carter, are paid by the fossil fuel industry to promote lies.
> Of course, neither Carter, nor Plimer are climatologists.
>
Flannery is paid by the Government to spread AGW theory. Of course, Flannery
is not a climatologist.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>