The point is that it was presented as a legit scientific rejoinder to the generally accepted consensus on anthrogenic global climate change. As it turned out the so called institute takes in a lot of money from Australian energy companies. Its run by someone who has a vested interested in minimizing global climate change.
In other words the report and the institute backing it have all the hall marks of a made up report designed to provide a "scientific" fig leaf to a very questionable report. In other words its worthless and does not add anything to the conversation. >"The source says it all: > >A conservative think tank dedicated to the principle of policy debate. > >Privately funded think tank. Not a scientific institution. The report has >not been peer reviewed. > >In other words it is not worth the paper its written on. Its just a shill >for their ideological stance. Once it gets into a scientific peer reviewed >journal, like Nature, Science or the Journal of the American Geophysical >Union, then it may have some worth, but until then its just ideological bs." > >Relax. Take a zoloft. > >I said it was for entertainment/information and not a silver bullet against >the cult of man-made global warming. > >J > >- > >Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - >Henry Kissinger > >Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go >out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:341404 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
