The truth at last

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

Of course you didn't watch it. Viewing might impact your POV and cause
you to question your previous conclusions. Those scientists from TU,
NASA and MIT can't be right because they disagree with your POV.


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.


Yeah, anybody who questions your POV must a crackpot. Because its not
about science, its about politics, funding and supporting your POV.

So any scientist that shows any skepticism and may question studies must
be a crackpot. If you have drawn your own conclusions, anyone who
questions you must be a crackpot. Anyone coming up with facts that my
contradict your POV must be a crackpot and synthesizing numbers.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Don't waste you time watching that video!! Regardless of the the facts
presented, those crackpots disagree with your POV.

Scott Seidman wrote:
"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.


They can't quantify the impact because its so minimal related to even
simple biological respiration.

On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, Scott Seidman
wrote:
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.

Having been away from this nuthouse for a day or so, I've been
entertained by some of the utter idiocy in this thread. Leaving the
extremes aside, though, I'm a tad curious about your question. At
this stage of the research, inasmuch as the scientific community has
only recently accepted the GW premise as a certainty, I'm kinda
doubtful that the firm estimate you seek is even possible at this
time.

Based on what little I recall from my readings, I believe the general
scientific opinion is that the human race has it in its power to
significantly reduce or halt GW. Now, if me turning off a light or
keeping my thermostat a few degrees colder in the winter could not
possibly have any significant effect, I'd say what's the use. But,
I've been conviced, rightly or wrongly, that it can make a
difference. For me, that's as firm an estimate as I need.

Joe F.

Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

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.

Yeah, anybody who questions your POV must a crackpot.

Anybody who refuses to accept scientific fact must be a crackpot.

... Anyone coming up with facts that my
contradict your POV must be a crackpot and synthesizing numbers.

I told you this before, if you have facts let's see them. Point
me to refereed, actual science not some crackpot Internet site.
You can't.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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.



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm


http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 13, 10:13 am, "rb608" wrote:
Based on what little I recall from my readings, I believe the general
scientific opinion is that the human race has it in its power to
significantly reduce or halt GW. Now, if me turning off a light or
keeping my thermostat a few degrees colder in the winter could not
possibly have any significant effect, I'd say what's the use. But,
I've been conviced, rightly or wrongly, that it can make a
difference. For me, that's as firm an estimate as I need.

Joe F.

But that's the problem, you turning off a light and reducing your
thermostat is not enough. If the problem is as large as it's
being made out to be you'll need drastic changes.

If it were enough, the leading spokesman wouldn't be using
20,000kWh a month of electricity now would he? BTW, I was
curious what an "average" family uses per month. Not that
I'm average, but my family of four in a modest house uses
~600kWh per month.
- Ken

On Mar 13, 8:52 am, 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.

So I've been looking for data to help me make up my mind and
haven't been able to find it.

Since you've obviously made up your mind I assume you've
found it.

How much CO2 is naturally produced in a year? How
much are humans producing? What is the total amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seriously,
- Ken

"rb608" wrote in news:1173806008.383231.53870
@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

Having been away from this nuthouse for a day or so, I've been
entertained by some of the utter idiocy in this thread. Leaving the
extremes aside, though, I'm a tad curious about your question. At
this stage of the research, inasmuch as the scientific community has
only recently accepted the GW premise as a certainty, I'm kinda
doubtful that the firm estimate you seek is even possible at this
time.

Based on what little I recall from my readings, I believe the general
scientific opinion is that the human race has it in its power to
significantly reduce or halt GW.

I was right with you until now. If we don't have an estimate of the human
contribution to global warming, how do we know if its in our power to
reduce or halt it through conservation efforts? I'm still trying to catch
up with the '70s projections of an ice-age, and the giaia (sp?) flower-
world model that said increased temperature lead to increased cloud cover
lead to decreased temperature.

Again, I don't doubt global warming, but I'd really like to see the firm
numbers before I sign on to the cause du jour. When people say we can
change things, I'd like to know how much.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
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.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

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.

Yeah, anybody who questions your POV must a crackpot.

Anybody who refuses to accept scientific fact must be a crackpot.

... Anyone coming up with facts that my contradict your POV must be a
crackpot and synthesizing numbers.

I told you this before, if you have facts let's see them. Point
me to refereed, actual science not some crackpot Internet site.
You can't.


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



Oh, but you refuse to view it because its just a bunch of crackpots.
Why are they crackpots? Because they disagree with your POV.

Doesn't matter who they are. Doesn't matter if its actual science or
not. It disagrees with your POV.

Doesn't matter if the video was produced by the BBC. They must be
crackpots because they don't agree with your POV.

Doesn't matter if the video was produced by the BBC. The BBC must be
crackpots because they disagree with your POV.

Doesn't matter if the scientists interviewed in the video are experts
(PdD's) in their fields related to global warming. They must be
crackpots because they don't agree with your POV.


Please don't watch the scientific evidence as presented in the BBC
video. All those guys are just crackpots because they disagree with
your POV.

And its a crackpot internet site because they are rerunning a video that
disagrees with your POV.



And in ALL cases, don't question any evidence that may contradict your
POV. It must have been gathered by crackpots. They must be crackpots
because they disagree with your POV.

All scientists MUST accept ALL the work of others regardless of what is
presented. Its the job of the scientific comunity to never question or
repeat the research of others. Especially if the work agrees with your POV.