What a load of crap.

Read some Austrian economics.

Uh no -- I quote

In many parts of the world, the daily intake of dioxins
seems to be at or above the so-called AI)I (acceptable
daily intake, 1 or 10 pg/kg body weight) value. However,
a proper basis for the determination of TEQs for dioxin
congeners is stlli not sufficiently well established; no
health risk to the general population emerges from the
data of toxicity and tissue concentration in animals.
This conclusion is further supported by data from people
with enhanced burdens of dioxins as a result of occupational,
accidental, or environmental exposures.

Which in a rational world would be used to throw out ALL their results as the fantasy they are...

Of course THEY should HAVE to do this! It's that pesky thing called the law....

yes. Amongst those of us who understand science the words "Bayesian" and "induction" and "checksum" come to mind...

Isn't the overall behavior by these so-called scientists enough to make one scream "A pox on all your houses".

It's blatant scientific misconduct. Period.

Ozone hole has turned out to be a natural phenomena not related CFC. (Never mind the pesky volcano spewing all sorts of ozone-depleting stuff near the damn ozone hole...)

Acid rain -- noone, anywhere, ever even slightly inconvenienced by the "acid rain".

While it is true that smoking can cause lung cancer, you might want to look up the rate of lung cancer in non-smokers...

Never mind the simple fact that as a PUBLIC SERVANT you have no choice about having to turn over your data by FOIA?

Funny thing that the AGW alarmists never note -- North America, which has almost as many trees now as it did centuries ago, is a net carbon *sink*.

Greenland USED to be green. It is presently covered mostly in ice. Thus, the Agw angle is highly inflated...

Copernicus kiddo, not Kepler...

That paragraph should be reread with particular emphasis on the Little Ice Age....

true. Especially since Co2 is immaterial to global warming since the primary mediator of heat in the atmosphere... wait for it... is WATER!

Which just goes to show you that you have no clue about peer review.

The mainstay of peer review IS demolishing the case brought in the paper, raising objections and sending them back to the drawing board.

And just to finish it all off: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong

When I hear things are "staggeringly complex" then I become 100% that policy shouldn't be set by said things.

Never mind Greenland isn't green so that should be a clue that AGW isn't close to being a problem.

And never mind that the major/minor ice ages correlate with precession and nutation of Earth and Moon rather nicely...

And, geez, on a planet where the temp swings from Ice Age to pretty-damn-warm (Roman Empire), one might want to pause and wonder if Man is actually capable of affecting climate.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22835/Nature_Not_Human_Activity_Rules_the_Climate_pdf.html