Search results

It's a lie? The other day it was "human error". In resources a human error will land you in the hoosegow and you are discredited forever and ever amen but in "climate science" you can publish unreviewed magazine comments as fact and get away with it. He is lieing about lieing?

LMFAO! You know it's not the same and you refuse to answer. That is cute.

Standards were set years ago. Look them up. Yes or no flossy? is the standard the same?

Is the standard the same flossy? Yes or no? Chairman Meow (aka Anus of Green Gables) tends to think it's fine for "climate scientists" to knowingly **** up and publish false data that impacts the lives of billions of people.

No no no. It's the review process having double standards of responsibilty and liabilty. Why are there two standards?

Climate science is a mining company? So it's not a science like geo-physics or chemistry?

Not a mining company. A doctrine of science. Are you saying one doctrine of science should have lesser standards than another?

Could another Bre-X occur? Yes. This time the commodity is CO2 and IPCC doesn't have to follow the same stringent review process as resources do. Nobody goes to jail and they can still raise funds for knowingly publishing false data as fact. Step up to the same plate and lets play ball.

Saskatchewan's environment minister is fuming about a report that says the province isn't taking climate change seriously. Dustin Duncan says he's disappointed that the David Suzuki Foundation released the report without talking to the province about what it's doing to cut greenhouse gas...

Guess what? MORE pipe! Hooray!!! CALGARY—Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP KMP +1.11%said Thursday it will begin a $5 billion expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline, nearly tripling the capacity of crude oil it can ship to Canada's west coast—the latest project aimed at moving the country's...

A ham sammage and coloured eggs.

Yeah it was/is a big failure of the review process but was it really a mistake if it was known to be wrong prior to publishing?

The reason why they made that statement is because they cited WWF who cited a magazine interview which was all speculative content without any review at all. It was taken verbatum and put into their 2007 report as fact even after a review member spotted and made note of the huge mistake...

What lead to this statement Tonington?

Nature is the IPCC?

I have no idea what a perr review is.

I did. You never read what you posted which BTW wasn't peer reviews. It was a blog. Post some peer reviews. Come on Les, you can do it..... or can you?

EVERYTHING you are bringing up right now all hinges on IPCC bull**** so either **** or get the **** off the pot. Show the peer reviews quantifying everything you are trying to say is quantifiable and you'll get a nod of approval from me.

Still no IPCC peer reviews?

Thanks. That one shows the lag too Les.