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