The truth at last

"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
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....

You answer any one of my questions and I'll try to find a way to answer
yours in terms that an incurable optimist might hope you could
understand.

If you have the attention span, watch the video. If you don't keep living
in a fantasy world.

Well, that's a very interesting answer but.......um.....what was the
question?

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....

Moron.


Now that's the attitude. If someone doesn't agree, attack them! Right?
Attack them enough and maybe you'll sway them to your POV?

No, I don't think that attacking anyone is going to sway him to my point of
view.......maybe his mother, though.

Wolfgang

Old Guy 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.


OK, so what you're saying is that anyone who questions man-made global
warming is no longer credible? Is that the criteria you use to
determine credibility?

Human activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases *AND* greenhouse gases contribute to global
warming. No *credible* scientist can disagree with these facts, if
they do disagree they are by definition not credible. That's my
criteria.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

By your definition you are certainly correct.

Paraphrasing. "Not one credible person disagrees with me.
Anyone who disagrees with me is not credible."

That's not paraphrasing, that's putting words in my mouth. It
has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do
with being a credible interpreter of fact.


Credible interpreter? What is that? Someone who agrees with you?
Anyone else doesn't have credibility?

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy 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.


OK, so what you're saying is that anyone who questions man-made global
warming is no longer credible? Is that the criteria you use to
determine credibility?

Human activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases *AND* greenhouse gases contribute to global
warming. No *credible* scientist can disagree with these facts, if
they do disagree they are by definition not credible. That's my
criteria.


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

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

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

By your definition you are certainly correct.

Paraphrasing. "Not one credible person disagrees with me.
Anyone who disagrees with me is not credible."

That's not paraphrasing, that's putting words in my mouth. It
has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do
with being a credible interpreter of fact.

Credible interpreter? What is that? Someone who agrees with you?
Anyone else doesn't have credibility?

I just said it has nothing to with agreeing with me, why do you
insist on setting up the same strawman as Evil Twin #1 when I've
already knocked it down ? As for explaining "credible interpreter
of fact" I'll leave that to your dictionary. You *do* have a
dictionary, right ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy 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.


OK, so what you're saying is that anyone who questions man-made
global warming is no longer credible? Is that the criteria you use
to determine credibility?

Human activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases *AND* greenhouse gases contribute to global
warming. No *credible* scientist can disagree with these facts, if
they do disagree they are by definition not credible. That's my
criteria.

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

No. I never claimed to have followed your link. Who wants to watch
some crackpot preach bad science to nitwits ? Now if you wanted to
post a link to a refereed journal I might follow that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


No. I never claimed to have followed your link. Who wants to watch
some crackpot preach bad science to nitwits ? Now if you wanted to
post a link to a refereed journal I might follow that.


You're right. That crackpot founder of Greenpeace can't be trusted to
come up with anything near reality.

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:


No. I never claimed to have followed your link. Who wants to watch
some crackpot preach bad science to nitwits ? Now if you wanted to
post a link to a refereed journal I might follow that.


You're right.

Yeah, I know.

That crackpot founder of Greenpeace can't be trusted to
come up with anything near reality.

I wouldn't know, I didn't watch it. But if he claims that human
activities don't increase greenhouse gases and that greenhouse
gases don't contribute to global warming then he is indeed a
crackpot who is reality challenged.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"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.

What I've found wanting is someone who will answer a simple question.

Wolfgang
who doesn't hold out much hope in a world devoid of facts.





The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming are
unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles contribute to
global warming.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.


Which, by the way, says nothing about my own personal views on the issue.
I just get my hackles raised when touchy feely science is interpreted as
hard conclusions.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply