media has pretty well driven one side of the arguments
every time, and every time a group of scientist have
followed. absurd as it might seem. that is history.
we are in alabam. lots of boxes. we'll not have
internet for still a few days so i'll have to just pop
in whenever i can grab a free computer.
--- Peter Hunsberger <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> On 9/13/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > oh my, i just got back on for a few minutes before
> > going off line. where to start.
> >
> > lets see. becouse we were wrong once we assume
> we'll
> > be wrong again. no, actually i read research that
> the
> > media has been going in cycles of predicting some
> dire
> > catastrphe every 25 years or so since 1800's so no
> no
> > because we were wrong once, but because we have
> been
> > wrong time after time after time. who knows this
> time
> > the doom and gloom may be right, but, if history
> > repeats, it will not be.
>
> That's still a rather absurd position, it reads
> essentially as; media
> makes a lot of false predictions so I'm not going to
> believe the
> scientists...
>
> > now peter, i could say that the list of 367
> scientist
> > that is the largest list thaT HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED
> BY
> > THE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CROWD is 367 so
> called
> > experts bought off by money and politics just as
> you
> > say the same about the 500 referred to in the
> Hudson
> > institute research, but it would not be a
> legitament
> > point for either of us to inpune the motives of
> the
> > scientist on either side of this debate.
> > now back to the largest list opf scientist on the
> > man-made side being 367. 367... 500 err, i think
> the
> > mention of thousands will have to drop a few
> zeros,
>
> You could say that, but you would be wrong. I don't
> know where you
> get the 367 number? Can you give a link?
>
> I realize you are in a hurry but you need to go back
> and look at the
> links I posted. The first is the consensus position
> of the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .(US
> Government Dept. of
> Commerce).
>
> The second link was to the [World Meteorological
> Organization (WMO)
> and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
> established]
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> consensus report on
> climate change. This report represents the consensus
> position of over
> 600 climate experts and is firmly based on
> peer-reviewed scientific
> literature and takes account of the full range of
> expert views.
>
> > and i am afraid that a 5th grade math teacher
> would
> > mark the 90% thing with a big red mark, you don't
> > remember the exact numbers becouse the exact
> numbers
> > are not out there with substantial backing.
>
> I didn't give the 90% number, it is however
> accurate. You can read one
> report of the IPCC agreement here, the 90% number is
> on the second
> page:
>
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=7A69E4EE-E7F2-99DF-303CDE51F7DD6BBA&pageNumber=1&catID=1
>
> > lets see someone mentioned venus to support the
> > contintion that humans are exaserbating the natral
> > warming cycles we are going through, so let me
> mention
> > Mars. mars is experincing melting polar ice and
> > plantary warming.
> > as far as i know there are no humans
> > working up there with coal fired plants and
> driving
> > suburbans put out by GM mars division.
>
> Good grief, do you really think the climates on
> planets whose orbits
> have absolutely no correlation to earths is somehow
> relevant? If so
> can you point at some peer reviewed scientific
> research that explains
> why?
>
> > maybe those
> > aliens that deri and linda are using to poke fun
> at my
> > sources are driving them and have the plants
> belching
> > smoke that somehow we don't see from here. poking
> fun
> > at those who diagree with ones position is a tired
> old
> > tactic. i don't buy into those post as being
> actual
> > points. Grinns here too.
> >
> > lets see, the question is am i buying fred singers
> > opinion becouse of his book. no actually the 500
> > scientist and there peer reviewd publishications
> > referred to by the Hudson institutes research is
> what
> > i am relying on to state that there is really no
> > consensus, but rather one side trying to ramrod an
> > opinion by saying there is consensus over and over
> > hoping to silence the other side.
> >
>
> Ken, if you really want to debate here climate
> change you need to
> stick to peer reviewed scientific papers. When you
> respond to
> arguments presented here you need to provide links
> to peer reviewed
> papers that support your position. I realize that's
> a high standard to
> meet, but most of the common media reports are at
> best subjective
> opinion. You're not going to impress anyone with the
> veracity of your
> statements by relying on someone like Singer.
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
>
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
