mnealtx 0 #226 September 4, 2009 Quote>OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? Don't you know? It's all those brandy-drinking, cigar-smoking grad student fat cats who make millions and want to maintain their opulent lifestyle. They want nothing more than to destroy the poor, underpaid Exxon executives who only want to do what's right and fight the scourge of science. Ah, yes, the typical bullshit and hyperbole in response - imagine my surprise.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #227 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuote*** Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? One of the reasons I quit a quite lucrative activity was my intense dislike of the scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hired who would say anything asked of them, in the knowledge that a lay jury couldn't tell junk science if it stood on its hind legs and bit them. Like Hansen, then...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #228 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? What was Lindzen's testimony as an expert witness, and what effect did his testimony and payment have on his research? So you can't answer my question so you try the same old distraction - OK. You already agreed with me (#216) over paid consultants. You have NOTHING, give up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #229 September 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote OK, which "Big AGW" company has paid Hansen as a consultant? What was Lindzen's testimony as an expert witness, and what effect did his testimony and payment have on his research? So you can't answer my question so you try the same old distraction - OK. No, I just don't give a shit about your 'question' - there's a small difference, but a difference nonetheless. Quote You already agreed with me (#216) over paid consultants. Um, no - just showed where the guy YOU support did the same thing. Quote You have NOTHING, give up. Odd...I was just about to give YOU that advice - especially since you have no PROOF of what Lindzen's testimony was, unlike the examples I've shown with Hansen.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #230 September 4, 2009 YOU admitted that it's important to know who has a conflict of interest. YOU have told us that Lindzen was indeed paid by big oil. YOU have not been able to find anything on Hansen indicating he was ever paid to push anyone's agenda (if you had you would for sure have posted it when asked). QED... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #231 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote*** Tell me, John - does how much you get paid for your opinions have anything to do with the validity of them? One of the reasons I quit a quite lucrative activity was my intense dislike of the scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hired who would say anything asked of them, in the knowledge that a lay jury couldn't tell junk science if it stood on its hind legs and bit them. Like Hansen, then... OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #232 September 4, 2009 QuoteYOU admitted that it's important to know who has a conflict of interest. YOU have told us that Lindzen was indeed paid by big oil. Um, no - YOU have said that. The link I provided showed that all of his research was paid for by public grants. YOU are trying to infer that Lindzen was influenced by his expert witness payments (with no evidence of what that testimony WAS) and is therefore not to be trusted. QuoteYOU have not been able to find anything on Hansen indicating he was ever paid to push anyone's agenda (if you had you would for sure have posted it when asked). And YOU haven't provided anything showing that Lindzen was paid to push anyone's agenda, either - you just allude to big oil. I've shown where Hansen testified for the defense in an eco-terrorism trial. For that matter, wasn't he recently arrested for the same sort of thing? Yes...quite the responsible scientist in comparison with Lindzen. QuoteQED Indeed - put up or shut up, perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #233 September 4, 2009 From the Boston Globe: "I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since." QED... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #234 September 4, 2009 QuoteFrom the Boston Globe: "I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since." QED So what? Prove it affected his research. You've got nothing and you know it. Since you want to talk about how it shows he's untrustworthy, eat this: Hansen testified in the defense of ecoterrorists (transcript above) and has since been arrested for the same activities. QED, yourself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #235 September 4, 2009 Quote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #236 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #237 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has. Unproven - provide the testimony.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #238 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has. Unproven - provide the testimony. Round and round we go. He ADMITS being paid as an expert witness by Big Energy. He says he hasn't done it recently and I believe that. But then, Charles Manson hasn't killed anyone recently.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #239 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has. Unproven - provide the testimony. Round and round we go. He ADMITS being paid as an expert witness by Big Energy. He says he hasn't done it recently and I believe that. But then, Charles Manson hasn't killed anyone recently. Irrelevant - what was the testimony ABOUT, professor?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #240 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. We KNOW Lindzen has. Unproven - provide the testimony. Round and round we go. He ADMITS being paid as an expert witness by Big Energy. He says he hasn't done it recently and I believe that. But then, Charles Manson hasn't killed anyone recently. Irrelevant - what was the testimony ABOUT, professor? It is indeed irrelevant to the concept of conflict of interest, which he clearly has. If you don't understand, you can add conflict of interest to the list (hypocrisy, straw-man...) of things you need to look up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #241 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has. Lindzen has been bought by special interests as much as you have been bought by special interests. Are you saying that Lindzen has no integrity because he was an expert witness? This would mean you have no integrity, right? Or is it that you think that there is no way Lindzen can actually believe what he is saying. And - please note - Hansen took about $720k in PR and Legal assistance from one of Soros' organizations (I believe it was actually - I'm not making this up - the "politicization of science fund") for his accusation of being silenced. I don't accuse Soros of being "big AGW.". To the contrary, the guy is loaded with petrochemical equity. However, Hansen and Soros utitlized each other. Soros to try to embarrass the Bush admin (like the Bush admin needed any help) and Hansen to put his megalomaniacal self out there. Hansen didn't have the cash - Soros did. $720k for lawyers are PR. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #242 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote OK, so you think I'm like Hansen. That means he doesn't like scumsucking plaintiff's lawyers and the scumsucker full-time professional "experts" they hire who would say anything asked of them in exchange for a fee, either. Fine. Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. What Soros does legally with his own money is not anyone's business but his. Trying to smear someone else is a slimy tactic. Quote The important question is, has Hansen been bought by special interests? We KNOW Lindzen has. Lindzen has been bought by special interests as much as you have been bought by special interests. Are you saying that Lindzen has no integrity because he was an expert witness? This would mean you have no integrity, right? Wrong. Conflict of interest is not a sign of lack of integrity. It's a sign of lack of impartiality. It becomes lack of integrity if you claim impartiality while promoting the agenda of your paymasters. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,476 #243 September 4, 2009 Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years updated 11:59 p.m. EDT, Thu September 3, 2009 (CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns. The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system." Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before." The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study. The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Video View NASA satellite images of changing polar landscape » This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight. advertisement "Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," said Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #244 September 5, 2009 QuoteWarmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years updated 11:59 p.m. EDT, Thu September 3, 2009 (CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns. The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system." Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before." The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study. The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Video View NASA satellite images of changing polar landscape » This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight. advertisement "Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," said Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences." An interesting read, It appears to me however that some large leaps are made as far as his conclusions go. Has his research been reviewed? Unlike you I will consider new info sir....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,476 #245 September 5, 2009 >Has his research been reviewed? The journal Science is a peer-reviewed journal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #246 September 5, 2009 QuoteQuote Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. What Soros does legally with his own money is not anyone's business but his. Trying to smear someone else is a slimy tactic. I'm talking about Hansen being Soros's shill. What oil companies do with their money is their own business. Trying to slam them and Lindzen would also be a slimy tactic, right? If it's good for Hansen it's good for Lindzen. If it's bad for Lindzen it's bad for Hansen. That you won't admit that is a sign of your partiality. Quote Wrong. Conflict of interest is not a sign of lack of integrity. It's a sign of lack of impartiality. Wrong. You are working backwards. You don't assume a conflict of interest. It is not a sign. Conflict of interest results from lack of impartiality. You are saying, "I disagree with him. Therefore, he is impartial." [Reply] It becomes lack of integrity if you claim impartiality while promoting the agenda of your paymasters. Much like for the expert opinions you offered. You assume Lindzen says what he says because he is paid to do so, instead of the other way round. I believe that CO2 is relevant. But minimally so. Unlike the assumption of the 1970's, etc, the "S" part of "(S/4)(1-a)" is not constant. It, as well as the albedo change (the assumption of solar constancy led to the short-lived hype of new Ice Age due to increased albedo). I may be hired on by "Big Contrarian" business to help them out. In that sense I will actually be getting paid to reflect the opinions of my paymasters - opinions I happen to share! Where's the conflict? Get it into that space between your ears that people can actually believe what they say, even if you disagree with it. [Reply] "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. "It is difficult to get a man to understand a contrary view when he is invested in his religion." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #243 September 4, 2009 Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years updated 11:59 p.m. EDT, Thu September 3, 2009 (CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns. The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system." Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before." The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study. The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Video View NASA satellite images of changing polar landscape » This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight. advertisement "Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," said Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #244 September 5, 2009 QuoteWarmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years updated 11:59 p.m. EDT, Thu September 3, 2009 (CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns. The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system." Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before." The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study. The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Video View NASA satellite images of changing polar landscape » This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight. advertisement "Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," said Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences." An interesting read, It appears to me however that some large leaps are made as far as his conclusions go. Has his research been reviewed? Unlike you I will consider new info sir....."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #245 September 5, 2009 >Has his research been reviewed? The journal Science is a peer-reviewed journal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #246 September 5, 2009 QuoteQuote Hansen has no problem with them when Soros buys lawyers, PR, etc. What Soros does legally with his own money is not anyone's business but his. Trying to smear someone else is a slimy tactic. I'm talking about Hansen being Soros's shill. What oil companies do with their money is their own business. Trying to slam them and Lindzen would also be a slimy tactic, right? If it's good for Hansen it's good for Lindzen. If it's bad for Lindzen it's bad for Hansen. That you won't admit that is a sign of your partiality. Quote Wrong. Conflict of interest is not a sign of lack of integrity. It's a sign of lack of impartiality. Wrong. You are working backwards. You don't assume a conflict of interest. It is not a sign. Conflict of interest results from lack of impartiality. You are saying, "I disagree with him. Therefore, he is impartial." [Reply] It becomes lack of integrity if you claim impartiality while promoting the agenda of your paymasters. Much like for the expert opinions you offered. You assume Lindzen says what he says because he is paid to do so, instead of the other way round. I believe that CO2 is relevant. But minimally so. Unlike the assumption of the 1970's, etc, the "S" part of "(S/4)(1-a)" is not constant. It, as well as the albedo change (the assumption of solar constancy led to the short-lived hype of new Ice Age due to increased albedo). I may be hired on by "Big Contrarian" business to help them out. In that sense I will actually be getting paid to reflect the opinions of my paymasters - opinions I happen to share! Where's the conflict? Get it into that space between your ears that people can actually believe what they say, even if you disagree with it. [Reply] "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. "It is difficult to get a man to understand a contrary view when he is invested in his religion." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #247 September 5, 2009 Your lawyer tricks won't work on me. I've dealt with too many lawyers before. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your lawyer tricks won't work on me. I've dealt with too many lawyers before.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites