The Great Global Warming Swindle

JTrader said:
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com You were saying something about a Global Warming Consensus?
Click to expand...

Typical proaganda from this "prison planet" web site.

Here is the official statement from the APS:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

Council Calls for Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The daily tech article refers to the a statement by the editor of the Physics and Society Forum, which is inviting a debate and opening it up by inviting Monckton to have a go. Get it - a debate !
 
JTrader said:
TBH mate, i'm not surprised. You are living in one of the hottest & most humid (?) areas of the world, that some would argue is just too bl**dy hot to live in, especially for caucasians/people with fair skin. Some would argue that Queensland is not a suitable place to live for caucasians (people of a Northern European origin).
If i lived in Queensland, I'd also be very concerned about the high UV Index rates, that cause skin cancer, and would probably spend a lot of my time avoiding the outdoor sun, unfortunately, perhaps taking cool showers throughout the day, and I'd be willing to try, or support any initiative aimed at lowering the temperatures by a tad!

In the UK, i am waiting for the first hot day of the summer, and its approaching late July. The fact that this & last summer have been damp squibs provides further evidence to me to back up the evidence that claims temperatures have not risen this millenium.

Perhaps the powers that be have cottoned onto this fact. Maybe they realise people aren't falling for this "global warming" swindle. So now, they're grouping it all into a broader context of "climate change."
Click to expand...

It may have escaped your attention, but Queensland is not all of Australia. I will agree that severe water shortages have focused attention on ecological issues and that is a good thing. The Murray Darling - one of the great river systems of the world - is dying and this is rightly seen as a glimpse of much worse to come if we don't mend our ways.

And I do know what the UK climate is like. I spent many year in London.
 
dcraig1 said:
It may have escaped your attention, but Queensland is not all of Australia. I will agree that severe water shortages have focused attention on ecological issues and that is a good thing. The Murray Darling - one of the great river systems of the world - is dying and this is rightly seen as a glimpse of much worse to come if we don't mend our ways.

And I do know what the UK climate is like. I spent many year in London.
Click to expand...

True, Queensland is not all of Australia. Queensland is one of the Northern states, and extends into the tropics. There are cooler, less humid, places to live in Aus.
However, even in Melbourne, which is maybe the coolest place in Aus, besides Tasmania, the average annual 24 hr temperature is around 4'C warmer than it is in Cornwall, UK. For me this is hot, and i could not live in that heat.
World Climate: Weather rainfall and temperature data

I have met Aussies in Europe who have expressed the opinion that Aus is too hot, and that perhaps Captain Cook got it wrong when he declared Aus as inhabitable!
Two of these were young Australians who have left for good, to come and live in the UK, as it is simply too hot for them in AUs, plus, they were fair skinned etc. (admittedly, baring a strong resemblance to Casper)

I'm not Aus bashing, i think its a nice looking diverse continent, that i hope to visit for a few days at some point. And i accept that the Australian climate has changed drastically in recent years, which has really hit the agriculture industry for example.

So climate change might affect different parts of the world at different speeds, in different ways. But ultimately, i suspect climate change is mainly due to the sun.
 
Last edited:
JTrader said:
So climate change might affect different parts of the world at different speeds, in different ways. But ultimately, i suspect climate change is mainly due to the sun.
Click to expand...
Firstly I'll state for the record I have not read the entire thread. Don't come into the foyer much and only just noticed all these threads. So I'm not aruging about the science or the links or who is right and who is wrong.

Your statement quoted above caught my attention though.(Probably because it was the last 2 lines in the thread!)

Maybe climate change is mostly due to the sun. I have heard about the cyclical nature of temperatures throughout history and it does make alot of sense.

However, surely you are not suggesting that our industrialised way of life is not having an impact on the natural conditions of this planet? An impact on such things and the weather paterns?

The Murray Darling drying up was mentioned. I can tell you the number one reason it is doing so is because we humans have been sucking it dry for the last 100 years to irrigate our crops. All human life on Earth would be long dead from heat stroke and sun burn before the Murray Darling became as dry as it is due to the Sun alone.

Forests across the world are being cut down at a tremendous rate day after day. You can't chop down that number of trees that quickly and not expect consequences can you?

Differing and unique ecological systems are bing wiped out all the time. Marsh lands being "reclaimed" for housing for example. Animal species being wiped out due to hunting and environmental encroachment. Every time one of these is lost the consequences are there whether we are aware of them or not.

We are pumping massive amounts of pollutants into the air all over the world at a rate greater than ever before. Do you honestly believe it is not having an effect on the planet?

Now, maybe climate change is mostly caused by the sun. However, I would argue that it is irrefutable that the human way of life is definitely having some significant impact on planet Earth. Further, that impact is not generally to the betterment of the Earth.

Since our planet must maintain such a delicate balance ecologically in order for life to continue to survive, wouldn't it behove us all to ensure, as much as is possible, that we have as little impact as is reasonably and practicably possible? Wouldn't it be to our benefit to research and begin using newer less damaging technologies?

Or should be go blithely on our way deluding ourselves that since the Earth has experienced differing climates before that this means our way of life is not having any impact and we should continue as we are?

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
JTrader said:
The fact that this & last summer have been damp squibs provides further evidence to me to back up the evidence that claims temperatures have not risen this millenium.
Click to expand...
That suggests to me that you don't know what you're talking about. It's sad that the person who seemingly knows the least, talks the most. I sincerely hope that no-one has let your uninformed guesswork influence their own view on this most important issue.

JTrader said:
Perhaps the powers that be have cottoned onto this fact. Maybe they realise people aren't falling for this "global warming" swindle. So now, they're grouping it all into a broader context of "climate change."
Click to expand...
Don't get hung up on any misunderstanding of terminology. The issue is the effect on the planet's environmental systems caused by human industrial processes. Those systems include everything: water, air, food chains, ecology and climate. One of the many aspects of climate is overall temperature, which is what global warming refers to. A couple of mild summers in our small country proves nothing. If it did, I could point to the couple of very hot summers we had immediately before last year.

The effects are intractably complex and wide-ranging, and you do not understand them. Neither do I. Luckily for us, a large body of professional, competent researchers around the world are devoting their entire careers to understanding individual components of this complexity. Think on that. To reduce the whole issue to a simplistic consipracy theory is not only wrong-headed, it is insulting and, if you have an audience, dangerous.

I suggest you cast your view beyond the mass media whose motives are primarily commercial, such as Prison Planet (yes, it's a commercially-motivated business, evidenced by its advertising sales and "Shopping Cart" link in its main navigation bar) and go direct to the source material, the research published in peer-reviewed journals. I get the impression you don't have a real grasp of the intellectual and professional chasm that exists between the scientific community and the armchair cynics, however, and might brush them off as co-conspirators. If you did, that would be shameful.

I am not a scientist or academic, and it would take me some time to identify the journals you may most benefit from, but if you're interested in taking a belated step up the intellectual ladder, I would be willing to try and find some time to do that.
 
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate - rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans - completely reversing his position.

Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.

“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”

“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.

Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases - “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” - which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.

“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.

Evans highlights data collected from satellites positioned around the globe that indicates temperatures have dropped about 0.6C in the past year - back to 1980 levels. Such figures are complimented by anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern - China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.

Evans also cites historical climate change and the fact that CO2 does not cause, but in fact lags behind temperature increase by as much as 800 years.

“The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect,” he writes.

“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion,” writes Evans.

Evans warns that the insistence on behalf of the man-made advocate establishment that “the debate is over,” despite the fact that a CO2 link to climate change “was merely asserted, not proved,” and the glee with which governments have adopted measures to fight global warming under this false assumption, will cause economies to be wrecked and as temperatures cool further, authorities will have to face charges of “criminal negligence” for deliberately lying to the public about climate change.

Evans’ public reversal of his position arrives on the back of two peer reviewed scientific papers, one of which documents how C02 emissions in fact cool the planet’s temperature and another that shows how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

As we reported last week, the world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.

Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Click to expand...
 
JTrader said:
No smoking hot spot | The Australian
Click to expand...
Interesting article with many good points.

Something that caught my attention was the following.....

"The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy."

Two things jump out at me.

1: The author is theorising that the economy will be wrecked. He has no proof of it. For someone who spends his entire article focusing on the lack of proof about global warming this seemed rather strange to me.

2: The idea that we should only change if someone can conclusively prove that change is necessary seems rather short sighted to me. I once heard a parable about a man trying to fly. He put wings on a bike and then pedalled of the edge of a cliff. All the way down he rejoiced in the freedom of flight. As he "flew" he noticed the ground was getting closer. "Not to worry" he thought, "I'll just pedal a bit harder and all will be right". Of course the ground got closer anyway. "Not to worry" he thought, "this is all part of flying. I'll be fine" As the man continued to "fly" a bird came up to him and said "mate, you aren't flying, you are falling".

"That's ridiculous" then man said "prove it!"

Then he went splat on the ground.

Just because we have not gone splat yet, does not mean we are not headed that way.

Personally I do actually fall more on the side of "natural cycles and the sun" being majorly responsible for climate change. However, I also know there are many other aspects about climate change and man's impact on the Earth that we must seriously look at and change.

My two cents worth anyway.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
And a couple of things caught my attention too.

The first is that it surprises me not that The Australian is publishing this type of opinion piece at this time. It is striking how so many vested interests have been "squealing like stuck pigs", as a friend used to say, since the publication of the government green paper.

The second is what exactly are the credentials of this bloke ? He introduces himself as a "rocket scientist" which is actually condescending to the reader. C'mon - what are you a physicist, chemist, economist or what ? Is he actually a climate scientist at all ? He says he did the modelling for carbon accounting for forrestry and land use for Kyoto compliance under the Howard government. The latter was well known for it denier standpoint and sychophantic attitude to the Bush administration. If I had to take a guess, I'd say he's probably an economist, but who knows ?

The attack on climate modelling is ridiculuous. How else can climate science advance other than by modelling and comparing the models to observation. It can't fill the whole bloody atmosphere with CO2 to see if we all heat up.

The stuff about satellite data is very questionable and there is lots of debate about it in the scientific community. There are problems with the data and it certainly does not conclusively show that the planet is cooling as the article claims.

The whole agenda of the article can be summed up by the sentance - "The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions." If that's not hysterical, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited:
dcraig1 said:
The second is what exactly are the credentials of this bloke ? He introduces himself as a "rocket scientist" which is actually condescending to the reader. C'mon - what are you a physicist, chemist, economist or what ? Is he actually a climate scientist at all ? He says he did the modelling for carbon accounting for forrestry and land use for Kyoto compliance under the Howard government. The latter was well known for it denier standpoint and sychophantic attitude to the Bush administration. If I had to take a guess, I'd say he's probably an economist, but who knows ?
Click to expand...
Wait for it ... he's a computer programmer. A Windows application developer. Yes, that's it. When he says:
I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
Click to expand...
He means he wrote a Windows program in C/C++ that let the scientists do their thing. Attached is his CV from www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc.

So his credentials in commenting on climate change are almost, not exactly perhaps but pretty close to, zero.
 

Attachments

  • DavidEvans.doc
    43.5 KB · Views: 631
Well spotted sir.

It just shows how debased is the level of the debate foistered on us by the likes of the Murdoch press. (Prison Planet is beneath contempt). These sort of opinion pieces are little more than propaganda, and while everybody has a right to have their say, reponsible editorial policy should dissallow the authors from masquerading as technical experts when they clearly are not.

blackcab said:
Wait for it ... he's a computer programmer. A Windows application developer. Yes, that's it. When he says:

He means he wrote a Windows program in C/C++ that let the scientists do their thing. Attached is his CV from www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc.

So his credentials in commenting on climate change are almost, not exactly perhaps but pretty close to, zero.
Click to expand...
 
No-one's mentioned the Ofcom ruling yet. For completeness we should note that TV regulator Ofcom found the programme The Great Global Waming Swindle in breach of the Broadcasting Code in several respects, and notes that Channel 4 admitted factual errors in the program which were corrected for a later repeat. Anyone who saw the original Channel 4 broadcast but not the More4 repeat would have seen a factually inaccurate programme, by C4's admission. And that's before any of the contested factual errors, based on a 176-page detailed complaint about the programme submitted to Ofcom, are taken into account.

Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 114 - 21|07|08
Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 114 - 21|07|08 | Ofcom

The programme is in good company, nestled in that Bulletin between Ofcom's rulings on premium-rate "babe TV", Red Hot TV pornography and yet more premium-rate TV porn.
 
Think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here:

"WASHINGTON POST

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."

Continued:
Undeniable Global Warming (washingtonpost.com)

Also:

Global Warming Shock Wave Awakens World Leaders

WASHINGTON, DC, February 2, 2007 (ENS) - This morning in Paris, hundreds of scientists from around the world released a report showing that global warming is accelerating, that human activity is responsible for this warming, and that it is likely irreversible for centuries, even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized.

The report, entitled "The Physical Science Basis: a Summary for Policymakers," was adopted in a line-by line review by the governments of 113 countries, including the United States.

Continued...

There is no scientific disagreement amongst real scientists with credentials specialized in this field of expertise that there is global warming, and that we have a role to play in that.

How else could it be ?

Causes have effects, and there can be no doubt that we have quite dramatically changed the balance of things through our emissions, be they from animal factories - the largest culprit -, or the slew of our other technologies that produce exhausts.

It's like smoking or heavy drugs, of course those things change the balance of things just as much on a micro scale in our bodies as our other activities change things on a macro scale on the planet.
 
Last edited:
JTrader,

Are you posting these links to open up debate and comment or just for anyone who wants to read them?

If it is the former, why do you not respond to any comments or posts which address your links?

If it is the latter, I'm sure those interested in reading the articles just for the sake of reading them have probably found the articles themselves already.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
PKFFW said:
JTrader,

Are you posting these links to open up debate and comment or just for anyone who wants to read them?

If it is the former, why do you not respond to any comments or posts which address your links?

If it is the latter, I'm sure those interested in reading the articles just for the sake of reading them have probably found the articles themselves already.

Cheers,
PKFFW
Click to expand...


Just to raise awareness. My links are articles/videos etc. that i have found interesting, and i have an open mind to them.
If people want to comment/debate them that is fine. I personally don't see the need, as i feel they speak for themselves, and i certainly don't have the time to right big impressive peer-reviewed follow up commentaries. Nor do i see a need to personally respond to every question asked to me personally about random articles i post links to because afterall, I am not the journalist.
My job is to milk the markets, not right semi-amateur critiques.

But whatever, its all good. Do whatever you want with the links i post - ignore them, critique them, destroy them with conmtradictory evidence, i don't particularly mind.
 
JTrader said:
Just to raise awareness. My links are articles/videos etc. that i have found interesting, and i have an open mind to them.
If people want to comment/debate them that is fine. I personally don't see the need, as i feel they speak for themselves, and i certainly don't have the time to right big impressive peer-reviewed follow up commentaries. Nor do i see a need to personally respond to every question asked to me personally about random articles i post links to because afterall, I am not the journalist.
My job is to milk the markets, not right semi-amateur critiques.

But whatever, its all good. Do whatever you want with the links i post - ignore them, critique them, destroy them with conmtradictory evidence, i don't particularly mind.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, was just wondering.

Cheers,
PKFFW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
GLOBAL Warming THE SCAM
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
16K
Atilla
Atilla
S
The REAL global warming
34 35 36
Replies
700
Views
93K
Ingot54
Ingot54
D
Global Warming: The Smoking Gun Email
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
sinimini
sinimini
M
crown capital save the earth management
Replies
2
Views
1K
mikelsukel
M
TWI
Global Bee population disappearing
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
Paulds11
P
Top