**** on Kyoto
On Dec 14, 11:33 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
The inaugural founders of the coalition we
Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing
Climate Centre in China.................. "
See, they even have an IPCC man.
Why is it the EVERY single one of these groups also has a "consultant
to energy companies" on board? EVERY single one? EVERY SINGLE ONE?
Isn't that odd? I mean, what are the odds of that?
"Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and
Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power
systems, now a power industry consultant."
Why the hell shouldn't they have an energy expert on their panel ? It seems perfectly
natural to me.
Why would that be necessary to review and discredit the "nutters" who
are basing AGW on poor science and politics?
Good peer review involves (scientists of) all disciplines. The idea that certain scientific
disciplines should be excluded from even discussing climate is plain barking mad. Of course
the 'climatologists' would doubtles like to keep all discussion with their cosy little
cabal.
I have not seen one site on either side that includes veterinarians. I
also have yet to see an automotive engineer. Have you seen a
histologist? Or an OB/GYN? LOL!
Why are you so afraid of allowing scientists other than those explicitly working in a
narrow field to examine the claims ? I conclude that the climatologists make such a fuss
because they have something to hide. Mainly sloppy work IMHO.
Where did I say that? There's no fear whatsoever. Your thinking that
there is is yet another example of your bias.
What I question is why power companies have representation on EVERY
SINGLE site that claims to have "proof" discrediting AGW. You don't
think that's at all odd. I do. In fact I think that's very odd. So be
it.
|