Artful Dodger: All Natural..... and you personally can prove this despite 97% of "publishing Climatologists" say you are wrong?

Can you explain how you got to be such an expert, regarding the fact that "You're just a voice on a game site."

(V): I'm not a voice on a game site. That's you.

Artful Dodger: RBS did not get forced into buying a bad debt bank, they were by other banks saying to go ahead despite no full accounts.

"bank greed"

Artful Dodger: So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject?

(V): You are asking someone to stay on point???

Artful Dodger: You say you keep on subject... so do it.


...can you personally prove the 97% of "publishing Climatologists" that say your opinion is wrong... wrong?

Artful Dodger: can you prove they are right???

Artful Dodger: I know enough of chemistry to know that you cannot pollute or add to a closed environment (as in the atmosphere is covered by a vacuum) ....and have no effect.

Do you?

(V): yes I do. Thanks for asking.

Artful Dodger: can you prove the 97% of climatologists who say you are wrong wrong then?

(V): Here's a fact for you: 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.

The claim that climate change is human caused is based solely on speculative theories. Warming modeling predictions are unproven and flawed. AND, many (if not most) of those scientists that promote the man-made global warming scenario earn their living ONLY if they hold to their global warming positions. hmmmmmm

S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and University of Virginia professor emeritus commented about these sorry circumstances stating in part:

"Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the 'evidence' was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed."

Another lie claims that there is a consensus among climate scientists that a known man-made global warming crisis exists. Official statements to the contrary presented by more than 650 international climate-related experts who presented contrary official testimony recorded in a 2008 U.S. Senate minority report suggest otherwise. So do petitions signed by more than 30,000 scientists that have challenged IPCC's 1995 procedures and report representations. Those circumstances prompted Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University to write in The Wall Street Journal: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report."

hmmmmmmmm

30 Sep 2011 - Al Gore Doctored A Video That's Supposed To Prove His Global Warming Theories [More proof as to how the False Prophet of the Global Warming Cult operates and just how desperate he is to make his nonsense and lies appear real]

Where is the outcry from the leftist here about greed, scientist would lie costing every man woman and child on this planet trillions, simply for their own greed?

oh thats right, because this greed promotes socialism and leftist getting rich

(V): In other words, man made global warming is true because you own a car???

Artful Dodger: You do have some proof of this? Some article or leak from an reputable source >>> not like Bush and his Fake WMD's <<<

As for Al Gore... that means everyone else is wrong because a politician beefed things up... Like those old WWII films stating the good old USA won the war purely by being the USA!!

Golly. How many politicians beef things up.... Or like with Palin stating that she ain't decided on whether she's running or not and please donate.

But her Daughter leaked by accident that she does know, it is decided.

Guess the ol' expenses are building up!!

Vikings: Because 'leftists' think you 'rightists' have been duped in order so 'corpists' can make trillions.

... After all, the end of the world is nigh. Jesus is coming soon, so it does not matter if we mess up this world as God is going to do it anyway!!

Isn't that right?

(V): now we know,it's ok for you leftist to lie and live by greed, you confirmed it thank you

Vikings: Did I.... where?

I thought Capitalism was the American Dream and being rich the goal of all Americans. Is greed disapproved of in the USA now?

. (V): Because 'leftists' think you 'rightists' have been duped in order so 'corpists' can make trillions.

as a lawyer would say, asked and answered

Vikings: Right.. that makes no sense whatsoever. Inherent in my statement was the matter of all the propaganda you in America have been fed through out the cold war.

... hence "duped"

Business and a bought government (whichever side .. Dems or Repubs) that has been generated and fed to you guys since before you were born.. .. probably.

PS.. I did some law in college, as part of a BTEC in Business.. 2 year course leading up to an AAT course in accounting.

(V): you are the one who said because, when I asked where is all the outcry,

asked and answered




now keep spinning

(V): Do you have an obsession with Bush?

Of course I have proof!

(V): "some law"

"as in "breaking of..."???

"The Democratic Party loves mob uprisings, it’s their rise to power.”

In the history of candidates, Obama has taken MORE contributions from Wall Street than ANYONE ELSE! And yet the lemmings in OWS are for Obama, and against his support network? How "duh" is that???

Bernice: 97% of all college students break the law.

97 percent of people who own computers own at least one. And it may be as high as 100%!

Vikings: Yes you are... spinning.

Artful Dodger: As in commercial law, with some coverage of criminal.

Gotta know what to do if the CEO of a company is cooking the books. eheheheheh

I guess the 97% stats are disturbing to some people here. Get over it, you're in a minority of die hard conspiracists. hehehehehe

(V): I'm not done yet. I'm going to make fun of your 97, 97 times.

Artful Dodger: can you spin around 97 times

Artful Dodger: Wow.. the actual figure of scientists saying you are wrong gets to you that badly??

(V): almost as much as the amount of scientists who have lied and altered results

Vikings: thanks for the idea. Then I'll fall down for 97 seconds while recovering from my dizziness.

(V): By your own argument, those scientists should be disqualified from consideration since they are supported by monies from those that benifit from the global warming hoax.

BTW, even the study you have used to claim this inflated 97% is both unscientific and flawed. So even if you repeat it 97 times, it will still be a bogus claim.

And I shouldn't even call it a study as that isn't accurate either. A limited survey is more like it. Very limited. The "study" Jules is using EXCLUDED a huge number of climatologists and other scientists. Much like surveying ONLY CONSERVATIVES on an issue and using the data to generalize the position of a populace.

Vikings: And you get that from where??? The scientists who said "duck and cover" is a good way to defend against nuclear war??

Sarcasm at those scientists intended!!

Artful Dodger: Then... to play a level field no scientists can be used here. HAHAHAHA

Got the scientific knowledge to back up and make a claim proving climate change is wrong?

... ok.. I know you don't ..... eheheheheh

(V): Don't get it do you. The "study" you're using is flawed. It excluded input from many scientists. Hardly a balanced study. Easy to conclude that the "findings" were intended to lean in a particular direction.

Artful Dodger: 3% of scientists is many?

That's hardly a balanced claim.

(V): Your numbers are wrong. It's NOT 97 - 3. Get current.

Earlier ... a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.


Source: epw.senate.gov

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust."


Source: epw.senate.gov

or else there won't be any by the year 2000