The truth at last

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.

I don't think there's any question as to whether there is global
warming. The question under debate is the cause. IMO, there seems
to be much more historical evidence that its natural rather than
man-made.

Your opinion is wrong. You can believe the earth is flat, the
sun revolves around the earth and human beings were created
"as is" on a Saturday 6,000 years if you want to but you'd be
just as demonstrably wrong as you are about the causes of global
warming. There is no more "debate", it's over.


Your opinion is noted. Its also questioned by a many credible scientists.

Care to name a few? Maybe cite a reference or two that challenges the anthropogenic cause published
in a reputable scientific journal? Try Science or Nature, just for starters.....

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.

I don't think there's any question as to whether there is global
warming. The question under debate is the cause. IMO, there seems
to be much more historical evidence that its natural rather than
man-made.

Your opinion is wrong. You can believe the earth is flat, the
sun revolves around the earth and human beings were created
"as is" on a Saturday 6,000 years if you want to but you'd be
just as demonstrably wrong as you are about the causes of global
warming. There is no more "debate", it's over.


Your opinion is noted. Its also questioned by a many credible scientists.

Care to name a few? Maybe cite a reference or two that challenges the anthropogenic cause published
in a reputable scientific journal? Try Science or Nature, just for starters.....

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
There is not one single credible climate scientist in the world
who disagrees that the contribution of human activities to global
warming is significant. If a climate scientist questioned this in
the face of the overwhelming body of facts that proves it beyond
doubt then he would no longer be a credible climate scientist.

Unfortunately, Ken, when you make absolute statements like that, they can
prove a little problematic.

Yeah, I read the Science section of the Times this morning too
and I'll still stand by that statement. There will always be a
a crackpot or two on some faculty somewhere but having tenure
doesn't make them credible.

Of course, we can dicker about whether this guy acknowledges human
intervention as a contributor at all, but hw most definitely does not
recognize it as the main cause. There are at least four or five other very
prominent climatologists/meteorologists who share Lindzen's opinions.

Lindzen does not recognize that human activities contribute at
all to global warming. Like I said, a crackpot. The others you
talk about have doubts that human activities are the *main cause*
of global warming but that's a different debate than whether human
activities are significant at all.

For me at least, "weather patterns" and "proven with certainty" should be
banned from appearing together in a sentence.

Crackpots aside, it has been proven with certainty that human
activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases are a factor in global
warming. That's fact. Period.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
There is no Global Warming. Anybody who gets his science from
politicians is seriously deluded.
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.

I don't think there's any question as to whether there is global
warming. The question under debate is the cause. IMO, there seems to
be much more historical evidence that its natural rather than
man-made.
The question of whether global warming is the result of human activity
or other causes is debated only by idiots.
Right. Those with common sense know that its a natural cycle.

Those with common sense understand the question, which indicates a
certain lack on your part.

You seem to think that its caused by humans.

Let's see whether you can demonstrate that the way things seem to you
says anything at all about validity, shall we?


Read the comments of the co-founder of Greenpeace.

The co-founder of Greenpeace has addressed the question of how things seem
to you? Why?

Read the science.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Titles, authors, issues,
dates.....all of that sort of thing would be very helpful.

Maybe you'll get some clue. Or not.

Well, what the hell, why don't you throw caution to the winds just this once
and provide me with one of these mysterious clues?

Maybe you prefer to follow the political line rather than rational
science.

Once again, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory......what is my
political stance?

If so, keep rationalizing your view based on hysteria rather than reality.

Reality? Hm.......

So, if your furnace does not produce any heat, why do you keep it?

Wolfgang
who will, for the moment, hold in abeyance questions concerning why the
moron bought it in the first place.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:jDyJh.5187
:

There is not one single credible climate scientist in the world
who disagrees that the contribution of human activities to global
warming is significant. If a climate scientist questioned this in
the face of the overwhelming body of facts that proves it beyond
doubt then he would no longer be a credible climate scientist.


Unfortunately, Ken, when you make absolute statements like that, they can
prove a little problematic.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Of course, we can dicker about whether this guy acknowledges human
intervention as a contributor at all, but hw most definitely does not
recognize it as the main cause.

Who can you name that HAS recognized human intervention as "the main cause"?

There are at least four or five other very
prominent climatologists/meteorologists who share Lindzen's opinions.

For me at least, "weather patterns" and "proven with certainty" should be
banned from appearing together in a sentence.

It has been proven with certainty that weather patterns characteristic of
winter are historically, as well as currently, much more common in January
than in July here is southeastern Wisconsin.

Arrest me.

Wolfgang
who thinks people should be banned from abusing a perfectly innocent
language.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.

I don't think there's any question as to whether there is global
warming. The question under debate is the cause. IMO, there seems
to be much more historical evidence that its natural rather than
man-made.

Your opinion is wrong. You can believe the earth is flat, the
sun revolves around the earth and human beings were created
"as is" on a Saturday 6,000 years if you want to but you'd be
just as demonstrably wrong as you are about the causes of global
warming. There is no more "debate", it's over.

Your opinion is noted. Its also questioned by a many credible
scientists.

There is not one single credible climate scientist in the world
who disagrees that the contribution of human activities to global
warming is significant. If a climate scientist questioned this in
the face of the overwhelming body of facts that proves it beyond
doubt then he would no longer be a credible climate scientist.

"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities."

That's not an opinion, mine or anyone else's, it's fact. Ignore it
if you want but you should do more than listen to Rush Limbaugh before
pronouncing someone else an idiot.

And, in case you haven't been paying attention, the debate is far from
"over", its just getting started.

I have been paying attention and that particular part of the debate
is done, dead, over, finished. Where have you been ?

http://www.ipcc.ch/


Yeah, and before that all the "scientific evidence" proved that the
earth was rapidly cooling and that we were plunging into another ice age...

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Who can you name that HAS recognized human intervention as "the main
cause"?

What I've found wanting is any estimate as to the proportion of the human
cause. is it 5% human, 95% nature, vice versa, somewhere in between? Not
an unreasonable estimate to ask for, given that people are being asked to
change their lifestyles.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Vaughan Hurry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Global Warming is real and nobody with any sense can deny it.
Anybody who disputes the overall findings of the IPCC Assessment
Report Summary released in Paris last month is a flat-earth idiot.

The facts are in, the scientists have spoken. Period. You can have
a debate about how to address Global Warming but the fact that it's
real is no longer in question. And anybody who tells you different
is a friggin' nutcase.

I don't think there's any question as to whether there is global
warming. The question under debate is the cause. IMO, there seems
to be much more historical evidence that its natural rather than
man-made.

Your opinion is wrong. You can believe the earth is flat, the
sun revolves around the earth and human beings were created
"as is" on a Saturday 6,000 years if you want to but you'd be
just as demonstrably wrong as you are about the causes of global
warming. There is no more "debate", it's over.


Your opinion is noted. Its also questioned by a many credible
scientists.

Care to name a few? Maybe cite a reference or two that challenges the
anthropogenic cause published in a reputable scientific journal? Try
Science or Nature, just for starters.....



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
There is not one single credible climate scientist in the world
who disagrees that the contribution of human activities to global
warming is significant. If a climate scientist questioned this in
the face of the overwhelming body of facts that proves it beyond
doubt then he would no longer be a credible climate scientist.

Unfortunately, Ken, when you make absolute statements like that, they
can prove a little problematic.

Yeah, I read the Science section of the Times this morning too
and I'll still stand by that statement. There will always be a
a crackpot or two on some faculty somewhere but having tenure
doesn't make them credible.

Of course, we can dicker about whether this guy acknowledges human
intervention as a contributor at all, but hw most definitely does not
recognize it as the main cause. There are at least four or five other
very prominent climatologists/meteorologists who share Lindzen's
opinions.

Lindzen does not recognize that human activities contribute at
all to global warming. Like I said, a crackpot. The others you
talk about have doubts that human activities are the *main cause*
of global warming but that's a different debate than whether human
activities are significant at all.

For me at least, "weather patterns" and "proven with certainty" should
be banned from appearing together in a sentence.

Crackpots aside, it has been proven with certainty that human
activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases are a factor in global
warming. That's fact. Period.


Which came first? The greenhouse gases or the warming. Warming would
increase biologic activity that would increase CO2 (a by-product of
respiration). CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas, biologic activity
is BY FAR the biggest producer of CO2.

Wolfgang wrote:

The co-founder of Greenpeace has addressed the question of how things seem
to you? Why?


So you didn't watch the BBS special after all, did you....


Read the science.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Titles, authors, issues,
dates.....all of that sort of thing would be very helpful.


So you didn't watch the BBS special after all, did you....