Text 17330, 140 rader
Skriven 2014-07-30 10:44:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOE DELAHAYE
Ärende: Re: Global Warming Scam
===============================
On 07-28-14, JOE DELAHAYE said to TIM RICHARDSON:

JD>Re: Re: Global Warming Scam
JD>By: TIM RICHARDSON to BILL MCGARRITY on Sun Jul 27 2014 23:08:00

TR> He made several claims about it's `disappearing'!


TR> It was found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually melting at
TR> half the rate claimed by the alarmists like Box.


JD>By whom?


TR> It's melt rate is estimated at about 230 cubic kilometers per
TR> year.


TR> At that rate....in about 90 years Greenland will lose a bit less
TR> than 0.4% of its ice volume.


JD>Put that in perspective please.  .4 % of that kind of an icemass is still
JD>a considerable amount.


The great panic is the oceans will rise and inundate large coastal
cities. Such a scenario is supposed to be underway right now. It
hasn't happened.


TR> So....what's the big hullabaloo?


JD>The loss of the ice


The Earth has been going through warming and cooling periods for
billions of years.


One of the so-called `selling points' of `global warming' is that
each time a large category hurricane or storm hits places like
New Orleans or New York, etc,...it `costs more to pay for the
damage.'


What they DON'T take into account is, it costs more because there's
usually more there to be effected due to continued, more expensive
urban and commercial developing. Prices for materials and labor have
since gone up from the last re-building due to an earlier storm.
TR> By the way...in 2011 alone the U.S. government gave out over $40 billion
TR> dollars to universities in this country for `research and developement.


TR> $40 billion dollars....a tidy sum. enough for `researchers' in the
TR> `global warming' game to have nice salaries, benefits, dream-package
TR> retirements. Box is around forty or so...hmmm...might be `retired' by
TR> the time he's fifty!


JD>You're insinuating that that money is spent purely on wages and benefits.
JD>None of course is spent on actual research (which is very expensive), of
JD>course.


The university Box is a part of got almost $800 million dollars from the
federal government (taxpayers) just in 2010 alone. A few trips to the
Greenland ice sheet didn't cost all that money. Some of it went toward
Box's salary, perks, and benefits.


And if Box and others in his line of work expct those funds to continue
to come in each year....the `right' results are necessary.


JD>You also forgot to mention that not all of that money is used by
JD>those who study Global Warming.  A lot of it goes for other projects


Yeah...of course.


But here's something...


On that `97%' concensus thing....was kicked off by a guy named Cook, in a
most un-scientific way, and his data was publicly available at one time.


A guy named Shollenberger picked it up and began checking it out, and
found it was nonsense. Totally inaccurate. In fact, in many ways it
was completely false!


Hold on....I gotta check something on the Net real quick...


Found it! In an article that appeared in The New American, dated Tuesday,
May 21, 2013 by a William F. Jasper, more details on Cook's `cooked-up'
data are revealed. Go to the article (its still `up' on the Net), and
read it for yourself.


Note the threats by a major university to sue a guy for writing about
the exposure, to sue if the guy reveals Cook's data, and even to sue
if the guy receals the university's threatening letter to him in which
they `threaten to sue him'!


But here's the question nobody in here seems to want to touch with
a ten foot pole:


If `global warming' is so real...so `settled science'...why are such
tactics against skeptics even necessary?


What is it they don't want anyone finding out? All this concealment of
information, deleting of e-mails and destruction of critical materials
to avoid its being inspected under legal authority....


Thats not how `science' is conducted. Something is dreadfully wrong.


And the only thing they all have in common is the taxpayer funding.


Its gotta involve the money. Thats the common thread. And `protecting'
their source of funding is a real strong candidate for an answer.





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