tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6632489940943178384..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The journal Nature suggests billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53267216453103363182011-06-11T04:17:28.349-07:002011-06-11T04:17:28.349-07:00Such rubbish can only be written by a lawyer short...Such rubbish can only be written by a lawyer short of work. <br />Asylum run by the inmates.John Marshallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-12288787440963687332011-06-10T21:18:44.944-07:002011-06-10T21:18:44.944-07:00Remember, Nature published the scientific proof of...Remember, Nature published the scientific proof of Homeopathy, The Memory of Water Nature Vol. 333 on 30 June 1988. They have always been sloppy when it comes to weeding out ridiculous articles.Harponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-27481648836100939762011-06-10T16:54:22.151-07:002011-06-10T16:54:22.151-07:00First they tell you even after the head of the Roy...First they tell you even after the head of the Royal Statistical Society said no Climate Math is even MATH at ALL, that they believe Mannian Statistics and the Jones-Briffa 'extensions' to it, are real math.<br /><br />Then they tell you, they think gravity's polarity is reversing and photonic energy that's dragging air molecules UP, are going to emit DOWN..<br /><br />Then they tell you they think it's been warming since the mid 1990s after Jones and others are seen discussing how they know it stopped warming in the 90's but "the scientific world would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it's only seven years of data," (every year SINCE '98 till 2005 when he said that)<br /><br />and the exact temp Jones said he thought was "it's only seven years of data and IT ISN'T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT."<br /><br />Of course warmers are SHOCKED that the ONLY GROUP of INSTRUMENT READINGS ON EARTH at that time were the RAW INSTRUMENTS' DATA PLACED ONLINE BY LAW TO STOP - you guessed it: WEATHER SCAMS like JONES, MANN, AND SCHNEIDER, & TRENBERTH's<br /><br />then they want you to believe that there is not ONE INSTRUMENT ON EARTH that can DISPROVE the Greenhouse Gas Theory, with EVERY SINGLE OPTICAL and INFRA RED TELESCOPE on EARTH, <br /><br />UTTERLY SILENT ALL THESE YEARS when, if there WERE a G.H.G. Effect they'd BOTH be SCREAMING about all the NEW HEAT DISTORTION in the ATMOSPHERE making OPTICAL TELESCOPY nearly IMPOSSIBLE and the RISING INFRA-RED POLLUTION making I.R. telescopy so much more difficult..<br /><br />it's just like Lindzen says, this isn't a theory or anything it's simply on-the-spot concocted VOODOO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39022988362822894972011-06-10T15:03:01.575-07:002011-06-10T15:03:01.575-07:00Who will accept responsibility for the millions un...Who will accept responsibility for the millions unfortunate enough to live in climates where the cold necessitates home heating who will undoubtedly die from hypothermia when they are restricted to 2.7 tons CO2 emissions ?<br /><br />I guess they'll all die ignorant 'cause they won't have enough electricity to run any media.<br /><br />We hardly ever use any form of heating/air condiditiong and 2.7 would last us about 6 months.<br /><br />Thank god I don't live in a cold climate and thank god I never read Nature.Rossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2334128995418047182011-06-10T12:53:27.316-07:002011-06-10T12:53:27.316-07:00In that case the skeptics should now bring suit ag...In that case the skeptics should now bring suit against all the warmist/alarmists for promoting unemployment in the many countries, not to mention deprivation and starvation in the 3rd world countries. <br /><br />It'll all end up with two tribes, all lawyers, suing each other, zero productivity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-6452689218233149342011-06-10T11:44:48.720-07:002011-06-10T11:44:48.720-07:00One assumes this shrill warning comes from a group...One assumes this shrill warning comes from a group that is already practicing this and so a photograph of the company parking lot what we may all count the rows of Chevy Volt cars would be a good test.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-65664136289930969122011-06-10T11:01:34.985-07:002011-06-10T11:01:34.985-07:00Just filled my spa, about to warm her up. Bollo***...Just filled my spa, about to warm her up. Bollo*** to the lot of them. Come and get some buckshot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56156416002381796322011-06-10T09:39:32.952-07:002011-06-10T09:39:32.952-07:00The Nature article author David Adam in your piece...The Nature article author David Adam in your piece here is the very same author of another Nature article in which he regurgitated a 15-year old talking point about "‘balance’ in the media gives too much coverage to the small minority of climate-change sceptics". The problems with that were detailed in this article, "‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who've been unfair to skeptics" http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/<br /><br />Global warming lawsuits themselves are awash in the same set of old anti-skeptic scientist talking points, as was shown in this article: "Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw" http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2010/11/27/global-warming-nuisance-lawsuits-are-based-on-a-fatal-flaw/<br /><br />There's a good possibility that Nature magazine has a bit of explaining to do about their anti-skeptic climate scientist stance......Russell Chttp://tinyurl.com/354jzganoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19605555084358693442011-06-10T08:49:42.894-07:002011-06-10T08:49:42.894-07:00Aye that'd be something - have been known to s...Aye that'd be something - have been known to say a Looooongg time ago in Fuel Crisis Times ( First one ) that people shouldn't be driving around in Autos that consume fewer MPG than HGVs - - maybe litigate against against Manugrs too for providing them AND Governments for NOT Banning them like their approach to Ciggys etc ( altho am non-smoker I have nothing against them )........ When I see this........ Grrrr! makes ye olde scots Blood B O I L !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-53314817273570198652011-06-09T14:28:38.471-07:002011-06-09T14:28:38.471-07:00Assuming a normal distribution of "carbon foo...Assuming a normal distribution of "carbon footprints" then half the population would be culpable.<br /><br />Athletes and sports men and women would be at risk of litigation, since they breathe much more than the average. Beans, Guiness and eggs would have to be banned. Vegetarians and vegans and those with high-protein diets are also liable. Are Greenies shooting themselves in the foot (or backside)?MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-20104181247557583232011-06-09T01:33:54.253-07:002011-06-09T01:33:54.253-07:00" ... billions of people could be sued for le..." ... billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate ... "<br /><br />Well, I guess all of us who inhale 0.03% CO2 and exhale 4 - 5% could be a target as well ...<br /><br />Looks like some of these people have gone completely loopy.troppohttp://people.aapt.net.au/jclark19/noreply@blogger.com