Leo lane.

You have just proven that you only take into account what you want to hear. I maybe slightly off topic here, but you seem to be looking at this with blinkers on. You haven't even examined the model. You just when strait into denial mode and when back to your normal rant.

"You are incapable of being correct about anything, going by your efforts here, which puts you way ahead of anyone else in producing error. (with the probable exception of the fact challenged Squeers)"

So your saying, overpopulation NO EFFECT! ok.

Pollution that's nothing to worry about, fine.

Volcanic activity, again no contest, good.

Extinction rates normal, oh your doing well. ( if the plants and animals are dieing out, I guess by your logic we're fine, man! wearing those horse shades must be a frill and a half.

You have not read one thing in combination with all that's so evident.

Go down to Woolworth and get some glass cleaner.

There must be something inhibiting the clarity of glasses.

BLU

Bonmot There is no confusion. The IPPC is a purveyor of junk science. The members of the UNFCCC uncritically accept the junk. After all as Edenhofer pointed out, the so called anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a useful tool to further the redistribution of the world’s wealth.
It seems to me that the United Nations must be following a Marxist agenda.

A nice little look at human ingenuity and environmental sensitivity:
http://www.gasland.com.au/

Gives one goose-bumps doesn't it..

"The IPPC is a purveyor of junk science ... The members of the UNFCCC uncritically accept the junk ... the United Nations must be following a Marxist agenda."

Right, understand. Perhaps you should have a quiet word to the Marxists in the Republican Party:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111806072.html

Debate policy issues, sure (we may even agree on a few). But your last post, no - I don't think there would be any point.

Here is what the official of the IPCC had to say:

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. -- Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010”

Having been shown up in the attempt to establish lies as science, the IPCC now blatantly announce that they are thieves. They are still lying, of course:” developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere”.

There is no scientific or factual basis for this outrageous, untrue statement, by this parasitic organisation.

Still a backer of fraud, bonmot? Any chance you will consider facts and science as a basis for your future statements? You have ignored them, to date.

Ludwig and the three stooges here, talking of overpopulation, seem not to have heard of Paul Ehrlich. They are not aware of the reason that asserting the overpopulation nonsense is not a favoured way to be a clown these days. It has been done before.

Paul Ehrlich in 1968 wrote one of the biggest best-sellers in the history of pseudo-scientific literature, The Population Bomb.

He argued that population growth would eventually, inevitably lead mankind to three choices: Stop making new humans, stop consuming resources, or starve to death.

The book started ”The battle to feed all of humanity is over … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” …“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”

And he’s been wrong on every count. Humans, rather than sitting in caves waiting to get eaten by sabre tooth tigers, invented spears. Faced with floods, we invented the sandbag as an alternative to drowning and mildew. And when faced with shortage of resources, we adapt.

And humanity in the past forty years has adapted – learning to grow crops where we didn’t before, learning to conserve farmland and water, developing new crops and practices.

Extracted from “A Life of Hot Air”:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/07/ehrlichs-lifetime-of-hot-air/

People are looking for new ways to make asses of themselves, these days, rather than repeat Ehrlich’s way of demonstrating one's idiocy.