|
Post by blondie on Feb 5, 2007 22:29:33 GMT -5
They, including billt, have not said there is no global warming, just that it has not been proven to be casued by mankind. Right, but why are they so desperately clinging to quacks as opposed to believing reputable sources? What's their motivation?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 6, 2007 17:15:48 GMT -5
yea, like ANYBODY is gonna wade through all that crap Certainly no one interested in real debate will "wade through that crap". It's much easier for the eco-chondriacs to simply lie about it and say the debate has ended.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 6, 2007 17:18:10 GMT -5
Are they "quacks" because they have no reputable scientific training?
Or are they "quacks" because they do have scientific training but that happen to disagree with your viewpoint?
Personally, I find the only "quacks" to be the eco-chondriacs, for they are the ones who are constantly "ducking" debate on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 12, 2007 22:16:41 GMT -5
Another global warming "denier": www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.eceI think the most cogent point he makes, among many, is that science by consensus is NOT science. Did the fact that there was a consensus of learned people who, at one time, believe that the earth and not the sun was the center of the solar system make them correct? After all, that was what passed for "sceintific consensus". Did the fact that, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat make them correct? Heck...for that matter, the scientific consensus only thirty years ago was that we were heading for another ice age courtesy of global cooling. Has that scientific consensus been proved to be factual? Perhaps man is having some affect on global climate change. Perhaps he isn't. One thing for certain, however: the debate is NOT over, no matter how many times the eco-chondriacs want to tell you it is.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 13, 2007 13:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 14, 2007 14:16:29 GMT -5
Another truly excellent article from a "global warming denier": www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19409This is a link to an article in which Dr. Timothy Ball (Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years- but then I guess he's not qualified to speak out on this issue either). Allow me to quote some high points: On Kyoto: On "scientific consensus": On the eco-chondriacs: Dr. Ball also lists three websites to which the anthropogenic global warming agnostics (like myself) can go if they want to hear the other side of the debate.....which is rather interesting because no less an expert than Al Gore has told us there is no debate: www.friendofscience.orgwww.CO2science.orgwww.junkscience.com (a personal favorite of mine) Y'know...maybe the debate really is over and the eco-chondriacs are right....only the side of the debate proven isn't theirs....
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 15, 2007 15:23:52 GMT -5
common sense.....heat RISES, goes upwards away from the surface....any heat "trapped" by co2 would be held briefly then released and continue UP, there is NOTHING about co2 that allows it to change the laws of physics.
heat rises even heat trapped by co2, when released it continues to RISE!
one of you GW religionists please explain how co2 could possibly REVERSE that basic law of physics?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 15, 2007 19:38:58 GMT -5
bill-
How dare you try to bring logic and- gasp!- science- into an illogical and unscientific discussion?
The eco-chondriacs know that they don't have fact on their side, so they appeal to emotion. The Left has a pretty successful track record....why stop now?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 1, 2007 20:37:36 GMT -5
I'm Baaaaa-aaaccckkk! And what do you know? I've got yet another link to yet another group of sicentists who have collaborated on a piece debunking global warming: www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf(NOTE: You'll need Adobe Acrobat to read the entire report) The article is penned by Ray Evans of the Lavoisier Group ( www.lavoisier.com.au/pages/lav-foundation.html). For those of you without Adobe, here are his nine facts and his brief comment on each fact: will cause unemployment and economic deprivation. Mr. Evans also has this to say about The Goreicle: Yet another reason to love those Aussies!
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Mar 2, 2007 1:12:04 GMT -5
The Lavoisier Group has some interesting history, if one wants to see how they come about finding their conclusions on global warming... (from the Wiki...) "Following an inaugural conference in May 1999,[1] the group was founded in April 2000 by former Finance Minister Peter Walsh[2], Ian Webber, Ray Evans, Harold Clough, Robert Foster and Bruce Kean. Currently headed by Walsh, the group's 90 members consist mostly of retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. The annual subscription fee is 50 dollars, and the annual budget is 10,000 dollars." Looking at where they get the inspiration for their theories is interesting too... "The group has promoted a variety of theories contradicting the scientific consensus on global warming, including the arguments of retired judge and astrologer Theodor Landscheidt ." The theories of an astrologer? Okay....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 6, 2007 15:47:04 GMT -5
the phrase "scientific consensus" is a big-time oxymoron...
billt explained that many posts ago...this is just a little reminder...
|
|