The truth at last

"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.

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.

Wolfgang

On Mar 13, 7:33 am, 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."

Regardless of the subject, that's just sad. You sound like
the intelligent design people.
- Ken

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
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...

Unfortunately, yours is a typical lazy layman's view of
scientific evidence. Scientists love to quibble over minutiae,
it's their job to see every blade of grass under a microscope
instead of the whole forest and to argue about it incessantly.
The layman, seeing the controversy, feels free to believe any
fool thing he wants because "Hey, even the scientists don't agree."
Thus we get creation science taught in Kansas public schools in
addition to evolution. No credible scientist disputes that evolution
is fact. Do they argue about the details and disparage each others
findings regarding the actual workings of evolution ? Sure, but
that doesn't mean you can throw out that whole body of science.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
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.

Um.....the chicken....no!, no!, wait!......uh......give us a hint?

Warming would increase biologic activity that would increase CO2 (a
by-product of respiration).

Tell that to a cycad.

CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas, biologic activity is BY FAR the
biggest producer of CO2.

So, who cares who or what produces carbon dioxide? I mean, we have it an
unimpeachable authority that it isn't the primary greenhouse gas.

Idiot.

Wolfgang
this is getting to be SO much fun!

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.



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?



Wolfgang

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?

Old Guy wrote:


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


Not a functional neuron in sight............

"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.

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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
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...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wolfgang