---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@just_me_karen wrote:
I'm going to blame deniers when we're slugged with huge tax increases to pay for recovery efforts after natural disasters, like floods and fires.

It'd be heaps cheaper if we spend money now to mitigate damage.

---

They can blame themselves when other people don't want to help them

---

Unbelieveable............ poor alarmists....... your thinking is very skewed......thankfully, you are the minority.........sigh......

Some may call this alarming.....

Hybrid cars

Welcome to Global Anti-Corruption & Compliance in Mining

*Now CPD Certified*                                                                                                        Pre-Conference Workshop: 27th May
Main Conference Days: 28th & 29th May
Post-Conference Workshop: 30th May

International anti-corruption and compliance regulations are evolving. Enforcement agencies are becoming more powerful and their reaches are extending. Mining companies need to adapt to the new climate by creating compliance programmes and effective due-diligence standards which suit their business requirements and which apply to international regulations often in high-risk jurisdictions. Implementing cost-effective strategies to do so is difficult. Creating an organisational compliance programme which is followed and understood by all it reaches is challenging to implement. The thoroughness required to undertake due diligence of all third-parties and affiliates is complex. Teaching national workforces on international and local regulations present mining companies with a daunting and sensitive task.

Global Anti-Corruption & Compliance in Mining is designed to provide cost-efficient solutions to these challenges by pooling the knowledge of the mining industry’s compliance and legal experts and offering thought-provoking presentations and panel discussions.

 http://www.anticorruptionminingsummit.com/

I call it clear thinking common sense

My favourite quote.

"We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations."...Dr.Roy Spencer

Unfortunately, Alarmists only have failed predictions, epically wrong computer models.....and cartoons.....poor alarmists.

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

My favourite quote.

 

"We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations."...Dr.Roy Spencer

 

Unfortunately, Alarmists only have failed predictions, epically wrong computer models.....and cartoons.....poor alarmists.

 

 

---

This Dr Roy Spencer ????

Finally, what does he say about the “missing” data–the model output that undercut his case, but somehow didn’t make it into his Results or figures?

How is picking the 3 most sensitive models AND the 3 least sensitive models going to “provide maximum support for (our) hypothesis”? If I had picked ONLY the 3 most sensitive, or ONLY the 3 least sensitive, that might be cherry picking…depending upon what was being demonstrated.

And where is the evidence those 6 models produce the best support for our hypothesis? I would have had to run hundreds of combinations of the 14 models to accomplish that. Is that what Dr. Dessler is accusing us of?

Instead, the point of using the 3 most sensitive and 3 least sensitive models was to emphasize that not only are the most sensitive climate models inconsistent with the observations, so are the least sensitive models.

Remember, the IPCC’s best estimate of 3 deg. C warming is almost exactly the warming produced by averaging the full range of its models’ sensitivities together. The satellite data depart substantially from that. I think inspection of Dessler’s Fig. 2 supports my point.

 

 

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/roy-spencer-responds-with-more-excuses/

 

 

 

Testing Truth with an Open Mind Dr. Roy Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a senior scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Centre, USA, and is a leading scientist with NASA. At one point in his career he was asked to advise the White House on global temperature trends.

To be honest, what little I knew about Christianity bothered me! In particular, Christians in my area who went from house to house inviting people to events at their churches irritated me! These people clearly believed they were part of the one, true religion, if indeed there was one. I asked myself, how could they be so sure? If Christianity were true, why weren't most people Christians? How could anyone in good conscience devote his or her life to any one religion without at least investigating all the other world religions too?

I also had a fundamental problem with the Bible. Was not its first book, Genesis, merely a mythical account of how the universe and life came into being? Anyway, it seemed to me that Christians picked and chose what they wanted to believe, selecting some things in the Bible, while rejecting others, often quite arbitrarily and subjectively – how, then, could I regard their 'holy book' as the inspired Word of God? Fundamentalists were all a bunch of biased faith-heads, while scientists were objective, honest, unbiased and open-minded. Well, sort of! The time came when I began to realise, to my initial surprise, that there was a group of scientists who believed that the universe and all life within it had been created by some greater intelligent Being, not by mere chance. They were seemingly able to do so using scientific arguments, not just religious dogma. I began to study their case and after some months of analysis I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

 

 

 

lol at Christians pick and chose what they wanted to believe 

 

 

Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist.

Did Dr Roy Spencer say this ?

I was struck by the unity of the Bible’s message – the way it agreed with itself even though it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1,600 years. I realised that the gospel records were free of comment from the writers. They merely recorded what they saw without exaggerating the events, without covering up the faults and failings of the followers of Jesus and without trying to present the story in exactly the same way. There were enough differences between the four gospels to prove they had not collaborated, but not enough differences to stray into the area of outright contradictions and errors.

oh Dear