Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zzuum wrote

You do realize that there is absolutely no benefit to denying global warming, right?

6

daniel wrote

Please answer my question.

The very scientists cited in the concensus study go on record and state categorically that their conclusions were misrepresented, do you think that is a problem at all? Or perfectly acceptable to ignore?

Here are some of the scientists actual quotes:

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake."

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper"

−4

[deleted] wrote

4

daniel wrote

I also get a discount on my gasoline (company policy) but it's only for regular (87 octane) and can't be applied to products from ExxonMobile ToGo (tm) convenience stores.

−2

zzuum wrote

Man I hope for your sake you are getting paid

3