<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A devastating response to &#8220;There&#8217;s nothing to see here, move along&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/</link>
	<description>The world&#039;s most viewed site on global warming and climate change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:09:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: owg</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-298173</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[owg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-298173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great article. However I could have done without the &quot;Chaucer&#039;s grapes in England&quot; comment. That lowers us doubters to the Himalayan standard of data.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article. However I could have done without the &#8220;Chaucer&#8217;s grapes in England&#8221; comment. That lowers us doubters to the Himalayan standard of data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Romeral</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-261477</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[George Romeral]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-261477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Armed Response to &#039;Climategate&#039; question:
Journalist Phelim McAleer (&#039;Mine Your Own Business&#039;, &#039;Not Evil Just Wrong&#039;) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about &#039;Climategate&#039; emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider&#039;s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard. 

Here is the link to youtube video clip. A must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
Close to 200,000 views so far !]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Armed Response to &#8216;Climategate&#8217; question:<br />
Journalist Phelim McAleer (&#8216;Mine Your Own Business&#8217;, &#8216;Not Evil Just Wrong&#8217;) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about &#8216;Climategate&#8217; emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider&#8217;s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard. </p>
<p>Here is the link to youtube video clip. A must see<br />
<span style="text-align:center; display: block;"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/"><img src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/aUtzMBfDrpI/2.jpg" alt="" /></a></span><br />
Close to 200,000 views so far !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MECHMAN</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-261459</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MECHMAN]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-261459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This kind of crap is exactly why there are citizens who want to pick up their rifles and win our Constitution back. AGW is being used as an excuse to gain
more control over the populace and strip them of their wealth. It&#039;s not enough
that our money has been debased and we are taxed to support useless
government drones; now alleged scientists want to jump on the gravy train.
Progressives, Socialists, Communists BEWARE! Just keep pushing!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This kind of crap is exactly why there are citizens who want to pick up their rifles and win our Constitution back. AGW is being used as an excuse to gain<br />
more control over the populace and strip them of their wealth. It&#8217;s not enough<br />
that our money has been debased and we are taxed to support useless<br />
government drones; now alleged scientists want to jump on the gravy train.<br />
Progressives, Socialists, Communists BEWARE! Just keep pushing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Saumarez</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-257952</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Saumarez]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-257952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am saddened how our great universities seem to be corrupted.  There was a blast in the Daily Telegraph today from the director of Climate Science at Imperial saying that the databases all agreed with each other and that the models had some shortcomings but the were basically OK.  Science is not settled by authoritarism.  I would suggest that they look at themselves and actually go back to the raw data and find out what has been happening to the temperature record.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am saddened how our great universities seem to be corrupted.  There was a blast in the Daily Telegraph today from the director of Climate Science at Imperial saying that the databases all agreed with each other and that the models had some shortcomings but the were basically OK.  Science is not settled by authoritarism.  I would suggest that they look at themselves and actually go back to the raw data and find out what has been happening to the temperature record.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-254352</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-254352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To: Bill Briggs

I agree, but more so.

&quot;Why would you believe climate research done by these people is any higher level than the Piltdown Man? Maybe a greater cost to society, but not much more important. Perhaps their motives are more pure, and perhaps not.&quot;

Scientific philosophy, competence and ethics are taught a lot less in the university these days and for the last several decades.  Scientist of the 40&#039;s, 50&#039;s and 60&#039;s used to have a developed culture of ethics.  This is not the case today. 

Piltdown Man?  you give me 30 million dollars, a brand new AOGCM, ten staff scientists, a name for myself and a seat at the royal table, I&#039;ll prove any theory you want me to prove.

That is what we are looking at today, a big pot-o-corruption.

Respectfully,]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To: Bill Briggs</p>
<p>I agree, but more so.</p>
<p>&#8220;Why would you believe climate research done by these people is any higher level than the Piltdown Man? Maybe a greater cost to society, but not much more important. Perhaps their motives are more pure, and perhaps not.&#8221;</p>
<p>Scientific philosophy, competence and ethics are taught a lot less in the university these days and for the last several decades.  Scientist of the 40&#8242;s, 50&#8242;s and 60&#8242;s used to have a developed culture of ethics.  This is not the case today. </p>
<p>Piltdown Man?  you give me 30 million dollars, a brand new AOGCM, ten staff scientists, a name for myself and a seat at the royal table, I&#8217;ll prove any theory you want me to prove.</p>
<p>That is what we are looking at today, a big pot-o-corruption.</p>
<p>Respectfully,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mikey-boy</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-254027</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mikey-boy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-254027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, notwithstanding these emails, I&#039;m going to choose, as so many bible-thumpers choose to hide their head in the sand, to believe that humans are affecting global warming.  Call me ignorant, but at least I am aware that not all the evidence supports my hypothesis - I am making a calculated choice.

per my calculation:
If we do nothing, I think we have the potential to see the world&#039;s climate change in ways we will not be able to control, to reverse, or, for many coastal communities, to survive.  This may not happen, but it is POSSIBLE.  Anyone who thinks it is impossible is in denial.

If we spend some money now, to promote things like solar/wind/nuclear energy/conservation, at worst, what we end up with is: more energy independence, less pollution in the atmosphere, and a long term solution for these issues that does some short-term good (jobs/stimulus).

Sounds like a bargain, in exchange for some deficit spending, which would hapen anyway, whether you&#039;re Republican or Democrat.  (And Republicans, quit your hypocritical damn whining, I heard no objections to deficit spending under the prior administration.

Check the polar icecap.  When it is gone, there will be nothing humans can do to bring it back, NOTHING.  Let&#039;s do something while there is still a chance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, notwithstanding these emails, I&#8217;m going to choose, as so many bible-thumpers choose to hide their head in the sand, to believe that humans are affecting global warming.  Call me ignorant, but at least I am aware that not all the evidence supports my hypothesis &#8211; I am making a calculated choice.</p>
<p>per my calculation:<br />
If we do nothing, I think we have the potential to see the world&#8217;s climate change in ways we will not be able to control, to reverse, or, for many coastal communities, to survive.  This may not happen, but it is POSSIBLE.  Anyone who thinks it is impossible is in denial.</p>
<p>If we spend some money now, to promote things like solar/wind/nuclear energy/conservation, at worst, what we end up with is: more energy independence, less pollution in the atmosphere, and a long term solution for these issues that does some short-term good (jobs/stimulus).</p>
<p>Sounds like a bargain, in exchange for some deficit spending, which would hapen anyway, whether you&#8217;re Republican or Democrat.  (And Republicans, quit your hypocritical damn whining, I heard no objections to deficit spending under the prior administration.</p>
<p>Check the polar icecap.  When it is gone, there will be nothing humans can do to bring it back, NOTHING.  Let&#8217;s do something while there is still a chance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Redelmeier</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-253982</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Redelmeier]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-253982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The shock, scandal, and outrage at the UEA CRU leaked emails show how far the research into Global Warming has deviated from science. True science rests on multiple independent experiments and data, not on personalities or credibility; certainly not a matter of any individual&#039;s words, deeds, or reputation.  Personality cults reduce science to the level of entertainment and politics.  And deprive the results of validation.  Nonscience.

That some researchers would be less-than-gentlemanly or even
dishonest is hardly shocking.  These failings are common in humans, especially when empassioned.  The horror is that an important hypothesis like AGW would be so dependant on a single source.

-- Robert in Houston
_____]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The shock, scandal, and outrage at the UEA CRU leaked emails show how far the research into Global Warming has deviated from science. True science rests on multiple independent experiments and data, not on personalities or credibility; certainly not a matter of any individual&#8217;s words, deeds, or reputation.  Personality cults reduce science to the level of entertainment and politics.  And deprive the results of validation.  Nonscience.</p>
<p>That some researchers would be less-than-gentlemanly or even<br />
dishonest is hardly shocking.  These failings are common in humans, especially when empassioned.  The horror is that an important hypothesis like AGW would be so dependant on a single source.</p>
<p>&#8211; Robert in Houston<br />
_____</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SL</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-253764</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-253764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Global heating and climate change is caused by increasing concentration of water steams / clouds, keeping the heat inside the atmosphere, leading to a temperature rise.

My old tennis buddy  Mr. Svensmark, a Danish PhD scientist in atomic physics have used the past years to study the climate changes. According to him – a short explanation:  

Such water steam/clouds are small drops of water – a small drop of water can be  formed/provoked by a tiny particle – they ARE also  formed by small particles entering from the space, cosmic emission.

The level of cosmic emission is variation over time, this emission comes from other galaxies. The cosmic emission can be calculated back in time knowing the position of the earth related to the rest of space / solar systems at a specific time in history.

Mr. Svensmark, a PhD scientist,  made a comparison of the cosmic emission over time, the past million years,  compared this with the hearth temperature / climate – and found that there is a close relation – I saw the comparison which was curves above each other – being a MSc Eng studying the results my conclusion is pretty clear, the close relation over millions of years is not a coincidence – I think Mr. Svensmark is right. 

CO2 is a particle too - question is the impact compared with the cosmic emission - but looking back in history, the comsmic emission were able to give us several ice-times and other radical clomate changes.

For millions of years the climate has changed on earth, ice-times, desserts before subtropics climate, the oil is the only left except the sand. All happened millions of years before the industrial age. Such dramatic changes over millions of years cannot be caused by instability on the earth – it has to come from the outside  ! If it comes from outside, we can’t do anything about it. But again, if they bring down the pollution in the name of god or in the name of global heating, they have my blessing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Global heating and climate change is caused by increasing concentration of water steams / clouds, keeping the heat inside the atmosphere, leading to a temperature rise.</p>
<p>My old tennis buddy  Mr. Svensmark, a Danish PhD scientist in atomic physics have used the past years to study the climate changes. According to him – a short explanation:  </p>
<p>Such water steam/clouds are small drops of water – a small drop of water can be  formed/provoked by a tiny particle – they ARE also  formed by small particles entering from the space, cosmic emission.</p>
<p>The level of cosmic emission is variation over time, this emission comes from other galaxies. The cosmic emission can be calculated back in time knowing the position of the earth related to the rest of space / solar systems at a specific time in history.</p>
<p>Mr. Svensmark, a PhD scientist,  made a comparison of the cosmic emission over time, the past million years,  compared this with the hearth temperature / climate – and found that there is a close relation – I saw the comparison which was curves above each other – being a MSc Eng studying the results my conclusion is pretty clear, the close relation over millions of years is not a coincidence – I think Mr. Svensmark is right. </p>
<p>CO2 is a particle too &#8211; question is the impact compared with the cosmic emission &#8211; but looking back in history, the comsmic emission were able to give us several ice-times and other radical clomate changes.</p>
<p>For millions of years the climate has changed on earth, ice-times, desserts before subtropics climate, the oil is the only left except the sand. All happened millions of years before the industrial age. Such dramatic changes over millions of years cannot be caused by instability on the earth – it has to come from the outside  ! If it comes from outside, we can’t do anything about it. But again, if they bring down the pollution in the name of god or in the name of global heating, they have my blessing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Guy</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-253527</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-253527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I heard that some research showed 97% climate scientists think CO2 is causing climate change.  A responsible plan for the future must involve moving from a carbon based economy to a sustainable one ASAP.  If you are wrong and a policy of taking no action is followed based on a small minority view then future generations (if there are any) will label all associated with this view as grossly irresponsible.

&lt;em&gt;[REPLY - Look around this site and you will find all of your points are discussed (from all sides) very thoroughly. I invite you to stick around and observe. All points of view are welcome. ~ Evan]&lt;/em&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard that some research showed 97% climate scientists think CO2 is causing climate change.  A responsible plan for the future must involve moving from a carbon based economy to a sustainable one ASAP.  If you are wrong and a policy of taking no action is followed based on a small minority view then future generations (if there are any) will label all associated with this view as grossly irresponsible.</p>
<p><em>[REPLY - Look around this site and you will find all of your points are discussed (from all sides) very thoroughly. I invite you to stick around and observe. All points of view are welcome. ~ Evan]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Werner Brozek</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-251973</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Werner Brozek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-251973</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A statement above says:
&quot;The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.&quot;
The following website seems to offer a perfect explanation as to why the increase in carbon dioxide should decrease precipitation but have no effect on temperature: 
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour
The following quote appears at this site: &quot;Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain an almost constant greenhouse effect and has negligible effect on global temperatures.&quot;
The following web site seems to suggest carbon dioxide plays virtually no additional role:
http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm
After analyzing the data and noticing very little difference due to CO2, this web site has the following quote:
&quot;This may especially be the case if there is any overlap between the absorption bands of water vapor and CO2. In this scenario, because all the energy in the bands is absorbed, further increases in CO2 will have no additional greenhouse effect. The implication would be that the pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were already close to saturation 
(total absorption) levels.&quot;

Werner Brozek,
Science teacher]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A statement above says:<br />
&#8220;The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.&#8221;<br />
The following website seems to offer a perfect explanation as to why the increase in carbon dioxide should decrease precipitation but have no effect on temperature:<br />
<a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour" rel="nofollow">http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour</a><br />
The following quote appears at this site: &#8220;Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain an almost constant greenhouse effect and has negligible effect on global temperatures.&#8221;<br />
The following web site seems to suggest carbon dioxide plays virtually no additional role:<br />
<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm</a><br />
After analyzing the data and noticing very little difference due to CO2, this web site has the following quote:<br />
&#8220;This may especially be the case if there is any overlap between the absorption bands of water vapor and CO2. In this scenario, because all the energy in the bands is absorbed, further increases in CO2 will have no additional greenhouse effect. The implication would be that the pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2 were already close to saturation<br />
(total absorption) levels.&#8221;</p>
<p>Werner Brozek,<br />
Science teacher</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: _Jim</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-251821</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[_Jim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-251821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gail writes (Note: extraneous non-essential adjectives removed): 

&quot;&lt;i&gt;They ... set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict ... they are actually working towards ... a totalitarian world government run by the elite. ... they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs. &lt;/i&gt;&quot;

Jim responds: 

&quot;SO the connection is UN –&gt; NGOs –&gt; Activists
What would these NGOs be?
Who would one of these ‘activists&#039; be?&quot;

To which Gail responds: “&lt;i&gt;The NGO Branch is the focal point within the United Nations for Non-Governmental Organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),..” You can look them up here. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ &lt;/i&gt;

Rebut: 

I&#039;ll have to say, Gail, this is in the category of another non-responsive response. The questions was, &quot;What would these NGOs be?&quot;, and, &quot;Who would one of these &#039;activists&#039; be?&quot; But, instead the response coming forth simply points to a website titled &quot;NGO Branch&quot; which self-describes itself as simply a &quot;focal point&quot; within the UN for NGOs.

This is not, then, an NGO, Gail.

Still waiting for Q&#039;s to be answered substantively versus artful dodge and weave (which seems to work for most Birchers; the intonation and suggestion of conspiracy and skulduggery without really ever citing or proving it ).

4 of 4 args down.
.
.
mods, just let me know if I need to pursue this on a different forum.
.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gail writes (Note: extraneous non-essential adjectives removed): </p>
<p>&#8220;<i>They &#8230; set up the socialism vs Capitalism conflict &#8230; they are actually working towards &#8230; a totalitarian world government run by the elite. &#8230; they use political activists to further their cause through UN NGOs. </i>&#8221;</p>
<p>Jim responds: </p>
<p>&#8220;SO the connection is UN –&gt; NGOs –&gt; Activists<br />
What would these NGOs be?<br />
Who would one of these ‘activists&#8217; be?&#8221;</p>
<p>To which Gail responds: “<i>The NGO Branch is the focal point within the United Nations for Non-Governmental Organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC),..” You can look them up here. <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/" rel="nofollow">http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/</a> </i></p>
<p>Rebut: </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll have to say, Gail, this is in the category of another non-responsive response. The questions was, &#8220;What would these NGOs be?&#8221;, and, &#8220;Who would one of these &#8216;activists&#8217; be?&#8221; But, instead the response coming forth simply points to a website titled &#8220;NGO Branch&#8221; which self-describes itself as simply a &#8220;focal point&#8221; within the UN for NGOs.</p>
<p>This is not, then, an NGO, Gail.</p>
<p>Still waiting for Q&#8217;s to be answered substantively versus artful dodge and weave (which seems to work for most Birchers; the intonation and suggestion of conspiracy and skulduggery without really ever citing or proving it ).</p>
<p>4 of 4 args down.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
mods, just let me know if I need to pursue this on a different forum.<br />
.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CO-Two Guy</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-251312</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CO-Two Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-251312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Note that the AAAS was founded by Margaret Mead and the same nutcrackers who started the whole climate charade in motion in the 70&#039;s.  Stephen Schneider from Stanford and Holy Benevolent Czar John Holdren were part of this same merry band of lying thieves.  Furthermore they founded the AAAS for the explicit purpose of having an &quot;official body&quot; to stand behind this ruse, parrot the so called &quot;consensus&quot; and have be the authority all fallacious arguments for AGW were appealed to.  

So how hilarious is it that after the &quot;science is settled/peer review&quot; crowd, whose belief in each other was their only &#039;evidence&#039; of Global Warming, has been publicly embarrassed, dipstick McCarthy tries to do damage control citing his affiliation with a corrupt organization founded by the same corrupt crooks, as his main article of credibility.  

But this is where mankind has gone wrong isn&#039;t it?  How many of the brainless followers of this religion adopted the &quot;Green&quot; badge as a way to give themselves a pass on doing anything else of use to this world.  Apparently Twatting on Facebroke was wayyyy more important than checking facts on the guy who wants to ration your breathing.   So in essence our bankrupt society MADE these people, MADE this agenda, and will be VERY lucky to escape with the same amount of freedom they went in with.  The AGW movement has set many precedents that a hundred Climategates won&#039;t undo.  

Nothing in this article or responses to it, addresses the damage that is evident simply by virtue of the fact that a dick like McCarthy even GETS A VOICE in the mainstream media.    We are not out of the woods yet...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note that the AAAS was founded by Margaret Mead and the same nutcrackers who started the whole climate charade in motion in the 70&#8242;s.  Stephen Schneider from Stanford and Holy Benevolent Czar John Holdren were part of this same merry band of lying thieves.  Furthermore they founded the AAAS for the explicit purpose of having an &#8220;official body&#8221; to stand behind this ruse, parrot the so called &#8220;consensus&#8221; and have be the authority all fallacious arguments for AGW were appealed to.  </p>
<p>So how hilarious is it that after the &#8220;science is settled/peer review&#8221; crowd, whose belief in each other was their only &#8216;evidence&#8217; of Global Warming, has been publicly embarrassed, dipstick McCarthy tries to do damage control citing his affiliation with a corrupt organization founded by the same corrupt crooks, as his main article of credibility.  </p>
<p>But this is where mankind has gone wrong isn&#8217;t it?  How many of the brainless followers of this religion adopted the &#8220;Green&#8221; badge as a way to give themselves a pass on doing anything else of use to this world.  Apparently Twatting on Facebroke was wayyyy more important than checking facts on the guy who wants to ration your breathing.   So in essence our bankrupt society MADE these people, MADE this agenda, and will be VERY lucky to escape with the same amount of freedom they went in with.  The AGW movement has set many precedents that a hundred Climategates won&#8217;t undo.  </p>
<p>Nothing in this article or responses to it, addresses the damage that is evident simply by virtue of the fact that a dick like McCarthy even GETS A VOICE in the mainstream media.    We are not out of the woods yet&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gail Combs</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-249772</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gail Combs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:37:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-249772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jim you asked for information, 

&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Can you point to several of these ‘events’? Something done on a regular basis, not just a one-time occurrence. Some specificity please.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;


I gave it - then you say I overwhelmed you with information and that respond with an ad hom attack calling me a Bircher.

I then point to the death of a woman and John Munsell&#039;s repeated attempts to get action from the USDA, and Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), as well as attorney Marler about the E. coli contaminated meat came from ConAgra’s Greely plant PRIOR to her death.  This is all backed up with testimony from Munsell&#039;s USDA inspector and lab reports, as well as Mr.  Painter, Chairman of Food Inspection Union&#039;s testimony that similar complaints from his union were also suppressed. I include the fact the Organic Consumers backed the law HR 875 which does nothing to address the above problem. You respond with a farcical article with a cow fart acting as jet propulsion.


I state Derry Brownfield was silenced. Monsanto leaned on Learfield who kicked out his old time buddy Brownfield. You ignore that and say I am lying because Brownfield found another way to go back on the air.

Perhaps after you and all your friends have enjoyed the corn chips and corn flakes made out of  USDA/Epicyte&#039;s spermicidal corn you might wake up to the fact that government is not your friend.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim you asked for information, </p>
<p><b><i>Can you point to several of these ‘events’? Something done on a regular basis, not just a one-time occurrence. Some specificity please.</i></b></p>
<p>I gave it &#8211; then you say I overwhelmed you with information and that respond with an ad hom attack calling me a Bircher.</p>
<p>I then point to the death of a woman and John Munsell&#8217;s repeated attempts to get action from the USDA, and Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), as well as attorney Marler about the E. coli contaminated meat came from ConAgra’s Greely plant PRIOR to her death.  This is all backed up with testimony from Munsell&#8217;s USDA inspector and lab reports, as well as Mr.  Painter, Chairman of Food Inspection Union&#8217;s testimony that similar complaints from his union were also suppressed. I include the fact the Organic Consumers backed the law HR 875 which does nothing to address the above problem. You respond with a farcical article with a cow fart acting as jet propulsion.</p>
<p>I state Derry Brownfield was silenced. Monsanto leaned on Learfield who kicked out his old time buddy Brownfield. You ignore that and say I am lying because Brownfield found another way to go back on the air.</p>
<p>Perhaps after you and all your friends have enjoyed the corn chips and corn flakes made out of  USDA/Epicyte&#8217;s spermicidal corn you might wake up to the fact that government is not your friend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gail Combs</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-249668</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gail Combs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-249668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ron de Haan (07:52:59) :

Gail Combs (13:37:15) :
Thanks for this posting.
Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?

That is tough.  It is sort of like AGW lots of people with different pieces of the puzzle.

If it is my 19 pages of references you want go to OpEdNews to contact me.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author18743.html

Sorry Mods I do not know how else to handle this.  The whole story would make a book.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron de Haan (07:52:59) :</p>
<p>Gail Combs (13:37:15) :<br />
Thanks for this posting.<br />
Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?</p>
<p>That is tough.  It is sort of like AGW lots of people with different pieces of the puzzle.</p>
<p>If it is my 19 pages of references you want go to OpEdNews to contact me.<br />
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/author/author18743.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.opednews.com/author/author18743.html</a></p>
<p>Sorry Mods I do not know how else to handle this.  The whole story would make a book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron de Haan</title>
		<link>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#comment-249617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron de Haan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wattsupwiththat.com/?p=13710#comment-249617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gail Combs (13:37:15) : 
Thanks for this posting.
Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gail Combs (13:37:15) :<br />
Thanks for this posting.<br />
Gail, I would like to have the entire story, how do I get it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

