You skipped school? Here it is in simple terms: crap in container = no crap in environment = good for environment.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Why? It wouldn't matter if I gave you the list anyway. You're too stubborn to poke your nose out of the mud and take a look so it doesn't matter what I post.
Why are these Global Warmi.... errrr Climate Change conferences about making Western countries send everyone else money?
So you don't think that the Trail area is any better off, I guess. Well, that's your problem and I can't help what you think, even if it's stupid.
To exploit resources in countries that need big fat "eco loans' to develope their resources.
It's stupid that they swept it all under the rug and you now feel all warm and fuzzy? I'd say so.
It's crap to ask who is peer reviewing the IPCC data and hypotheses? You should have no problems showing who but apparently you can't. Why can't you? There isn't any peer review on IPCC bull****??
You dumb knob, the IPCC reviews the evidence. They aren't performing hypothesis tests, they are reviewing the literature.
Durp.
Yes, a big load of crap.
Durp.
We've actually gone over the IPCC review model about 384 times already but petros and cap conveniently forget or are willfully ignorant or are amnesiacs or something.
I disagree, and you've done a terrible job proving your point. Don't make me bust out the "unconscionable".
Flossy. Is the review system for IPCC the same as the review process in other scientisfic agenices? Yes or no? What differs? Please explain in full or I'll whip out an "unconscionable" childish meme.
Reading your post reminds me of this old saying: There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
The IPCC and other proponents of AGW have been questioned and proven incompetent on the effectiveness of the 'peer review' system in which they place so much importance, yet for the truthers like yourself, those events never happened.