Text 14931, 134 rader
Skriven 2014-05-06 09:04:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av WARD DOSSCHE
Ärende: Re: Right up your, errrr,
=================================
On 05-06-14, WARD DOSSCHE said to TIM RICHARDSON:

WD>Hi Tim,


TR> I never stated an actual `title' to any so-called `Nature' magazine. And
TR> I doubt `global warming' papers would make it into a German nudist
TR> publication like "Nature", anyway.


WD>If you are unfamiliar with the British scientifc publication "Nature" then
WD>it is obvious you don't understand the essence of the debate you are
WD>firing-up yourself.


Well..it doesn't make it to any news stands around where I live, so naturally
I don't see it.


As for it being a *British* scientific publication, thats suspicious in
itself. How many `scientists' from *East Anglia* put articles in it?


WD>http://www.nature.com/


TR> But, there was an article on April 14th 2014 ...


WD>There were billions of articles and writings and blogs that day. If you
WD>take enough time you will find writings to support any claim about any
WD>subject, even alleged scientific proof that JFK was murdered by a
WD>laser-blast from a Martian-spaceship in a slingshot track around Earth
WD>bouncing-off from a window-pane where Lee Harvey Oswald was eating a
WD>sandwich.


So then...you could ALso say that the `global warming-morphed-into-climate
change...this *alleged* scientific proof that the Earth is headed to world-
wide ALso falls into that category...eh?


And since you've now taken the discussion into the realm of idiocy with your
`martian spaceships, laser-blasts, and Oswald's lunch...I suspect you could
ALso put `global warming-morphed-into-climate change into that same bucket of
BS where it belongs!

TR> Harvard professor Robert Stavins said it is commonly known that the UN
TR> report is rarely if ever read in its entirety by reporters or
TR> politicians.


WD>Robert Stavins is a bright person who is often selectively quoted with
WD>statements being pulled completely out of context. I had the pleasure of
WD>working with him in 2000 and 2001 in the run-up to the 2002 summit-meeting
WD>on sustainable development in Johannesburg.


Robert Stavins is a scientist. There is nothing `selectively quoted' about the
man coming out and stating that an official report on a subject that has
engaged a huge amount of political activity, AND taxpayer's treasure for the
last 18 to 20 years, has been DOCTORED to reflect what a bunch of
*politicians* want it to reflect!


WD>Of course, politicians and reporters do not read technical reports
WD>hundreds of pages long.


Then...all these scare tactics from politicians to gin up funds for so-called
`studies', and wild-ass scenarios of `the future' by reporters, are all based
on horse-pucky, right?


If you don't READ a report...you cannot POSSIBLY go in front of a government
body and speak intelligently on the subject matter you're trying to gin up
funds for!


WD>That's what executive summaries are for.
WD>Politicians aren't being paid to read an 800-page report or they'd risk
WD>being impeached and journalists simply don't have the time, they only have
WD>deadlines ... hence "executive summaries".


So...in order to avoid being *impeached* for having at least a smattering of
knowledge on a subject, by reading an important report of findings which their
governments (probably paid out a considerable amount of taxpayers' money to
gather the information for...politicians and reporters (who just don't have
the time) avoid all that pesky reading, and just get up in front of government
bodies, or write stories in publications, on a subject they don't know
anything about because they can't be bothered to read the fuckin' report
taxpayers were forced to pay for in the first place! Right?


TR> Typically, those types make do with a `summary', which is (of course)
TR> written by the `global warming' fanatics themselves.


WD>That is not a de-facto statement by Robert Stavins, but added by the exact
WD>people who have the hidden agenda and need to discredit the report,
WD>whatever it was about.


That isn't ADDED...thats what comes across from exactly what YOU just typed to
me in this very post!


WD>A scientist will always provide for his/her own executive summary.


And `scientist's' at East Anglia let the cat out of the bag by getting too
arrogant in their e-mails to one another, and the entire scam was exposed for
exactly what it is; horse-nana!


And the relevations of people like Stavin, about how this so-called `oh-so-
important' UN report (IPCC?) is `doctored' to fit political agendas, is just
icing on the cake!


WD>What you may have read about Stavins was already re-hashed at least twice
WD>by other sources.


What you've tried to gloss over here has been glossed over by far smarter
people than you. You don't even come close to being convincing.

Lasers....Oswald's sandwich!


---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)