greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:


That's right. Why would you bother with them when you can listen to Alan?

Those eggheads are so boring.

DITCH THE WITCH.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:09am:


I agree, she has!

gold_medal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

And these cultists will defend this shite to the end. Just unbelievable. As long as the failed co2 gas theory holds 1 leg, they are happy to keep going.

Well here is the carbon trading money tree. Bigger and better, more honed in to the co2 gas, than any oil money could dream of

If the carbon trading business seems too good to be true, maybe there’s a good reason

Guest post by Kelvin Kemm

The COP-18 environmental conference held in Doha has come and gone. In the wake of high expectations for a successor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate – and several countries have withdrawn from the process or signaled their intent to do so.

Moreover, many observers believe the decision to extend the Protocol was primarily the result of countries not having the courage to stop or scuttle it outright, and not actually knowing what to do next. So the easy way out was to just extend Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for “climate mitigation,” which is a sort of apology from the first world for having allegedly messed up the planet in the first place with their fossil fuels and economic development.

Whether the billions of promised aid dollars will really materialize is another matter. But a lot of people have already gotten rich – including Al Gore, hundreds of climate scientists, and thousands of environmental activists and government bureaucrats – and others are trying to cash in. 


more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/#more-77696

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:


1) I already read it!

2) It says nothing about needing extra resources!

3) Comments are parts of the normal peer review process, they are NOT errors!!

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 12:03am:


Where do you think the 34,000 comments come from, Progs?
You may like to have a look here?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

On 2nd thoughts, you probably wouldn't, because it won't make any difference, no matter what is said, your mind is made up!

Maqqa wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:


It isnt even news. Every report has to have the errors fixed.

SOB

This is IPCC at their pathetic best. Busted again for being just political environmental activists.

Critics are blasting a draft U.N. climate change report that combines studies by advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace alongside scientific research papers -- the same issue that led independent auditors to slam the U.N.'s last report.

“You'd think that the IPCC would have learned its lesson, that it would have told its authors not to rely on these sorts of publications,” said Donna Laframboise, the head of nofrakkingconsensus.com, an investigative website skeptical of the scientific consensus on global warming.

“The report currently includes, amongst its list of references, nine separate publications produced wholly or in part by the WWF,” Laframboise told FoxNews.com.

This isn’t the first time the WWF has been used as a source in a climate assessment report by the U.N.'s IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2007, the panel relied on statements made in a WWF article to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. That claim was based on nothing more than a remark that a scientist made in a 1999 interview with New Scientistmagazine.

A 2010 audit by a panel of scientists from around the world called for change, meaning less so-called "gray literature," and the IPCC apologized for the error.


more
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/23/leaked-un-climate-report-slammed-for-c...