by read good books 105 Replies latest social current
Anyone who disagrees or even questions it is an "imbecile".
Wait; I'm in a cult because you're an imbecile?
Do you disagree that greenhouse gasses warm the earth? Do you "question" that greenhouse gasses warm the earth? Let's start there and move up the line to see if we can pinpoint exactly what scientific theory it is you disagree with.
No, six,
You are a cult member because you say that anyone who questions your cultic viewpoint is an imbecile. Just like jws think that anyone who questions the organization is stupid and evil.
No. I do not believe that greenhouse gasses are the cause for climate change. There are many scientists who disagree with man made global warming. For example" Dr. Richard S. Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology But I guess he's an imbecile too.
You can call me an imbecile....not a problem....but it says far more about you than it does about me.
Coffee
I'm trying to figure out just what you believe.
I did not ask if you believe that "greenhouse gasses are the cause for climate change" because I'm trying to figure out if you understand that greenhouse gasses warm the earth. Are you saying that you don't believe greenhouse gasses warm the earth? That would be a rather extraordinary claim, if so.
I'm trying to figure out what you believe, not what you don't believe (you've been rather clear about that).
No. I do not believe that greenhouse gasses are the cause for climate change. There are many scientists who disagree with man made global warming. For example" Dr. Richard S. Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology But I guess he's an imbecile too....
Correct - Exxon Mobil don't pay imbeciles and the Cato Institute don't publish the work of imbeciles, even if that particular paper is 17 years old now. He also believes that lung cancer and cigarette smoking are only tenously linked.
Of course there will be a continuum of beliefs among climate scientists - the question is where do the majority position themselves and why?
Still waiting for primary source basic research supporting your premises
coffee_black
Moshe
John Doe
Gregor
so far all you have offered is media articles, nothing at all or even worse than nothing - Michael Crichton fiction.
OK, I'll say it again. I don't care WTF you choose to believe. If it feeds an ego need to belong to the Global Climate Change Movement then do it! After all, you're not JW's anymore, you've gone from being cult drones to rubbing intellectual shoulders with the very cream of the current popular culture fad. You are now officially a member of the "enlightened". I don't blame you for pouncing on people who dare to walk around your fragile little balloon with a pin.
Calm down Gregor - I was only asking for basic research evidence - which I think it is safe to say you have no intention of posting?
Not political ideology or media spin (surely the preserve of the truly enlightened) but just plain ol' research. I think the trouble you have with this simple request is that such evidence seems hard to come by for some reason.
Oh well - back to the voice of the people we report you decide retired weathermen with their ebooks just $9.95 click here.....
"...the question is where do the majority position themselves and why?"
Oh boy. Besty hit on one of my basic rationalist's rules of thumb right there. From taping dry wall to using air guns for finish nailing or understanding evolution - do not fuck with the boys and girls who do this every day. When someone comes along with an idea that works, the majority in that field know it's right and start to use it. Otherwise they die out.
Where does the preponderance of expert opinion lie? Never, ever, ignore that question.
That's why, when you got something like 500 scientists signing the UN global climate change paper a couple of years ago, that means a lot to me.
Let me illustrate. You and a crew of three can trim out a house in a week the old fashion way, with a miter box, finish hammers and nail sets, or two carpenters can do it in a day with a finish chop saw and a finish air nail gun. Guess who gets the job? Guess what method all the experts end up using?
If the evidence doesn't support a human element in global climate change, you'll see the experts headed that way real soon. So far, that isn't happening. Just the opposite. I agree that politics applies its own pressure - but not for too long when the evidence is clear.
S4
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time to supply you with information that you will not even consider. You have the burden to support your (and those you look to to tell you what to believe) proof is. Science by consensus carries no weight with real scientists. As they say about the Bible, man- caused Global Climate statistics, (all from computor generated models based on info fed into them by people with a big ax to grind) is a fiddle that any tune can be played on.
As to the latter part of your post (weatherman ebooks, $9.95??) I have no idea what it means but I'm sure it must be some kind of snark. Sorry I can't appreciate how clever it must be.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time to supply you with information that you will not even consider
you did waste my time with a reference to Michael Crichton and I have considered all information supplied on this thread - to date it has included works of fiction and local guide to whats going on websites, retired weathermen blogs etc - just desperately short of primary source basic research scientific evidence, other than the graph + link I supplied on page 1
You have the burden to support your (and those you look to to tell you what to believe) proof is
I have presented primary source basic research to support global climate change caused by humans. So far you have presented Michael Crichton.
Science by consensus carries no weight with real scientists.
There is no such thing as science by consensus so not sure what your point is here. Consensus is the collective judgement of the experts in any given field.
As they say about the Bible, man- caused Global Climate statistics, (all from computor generated models based on info fed into them by people with a big ax to grind) is a fiddle that any tune can be played on
Are you really saying that global climate change theory is based on biased information entered into computers? Like a vast conspiracy theory?
As to the latter part of your post (weatherman ebooks, $9.95??) I have no idea what it means but I'm sure it must be some kind of snark. Sorry I can't appreciate how clever it must be
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/manuscript.html
for just $9.95 find out what the retired weatherman has dicovered that all the climate scientists have missed...up until now....ask coffee_black for the summary
You have the last word. It seems very important to you.
Best regards to you and Sweetpea.
