Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:55:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:11:30 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:59:35 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Just one. If you do that, and if I haven't read it yet, I'll go ask the
author for a copy and do so. Either way, I will prepare myself from it
and then we can discuss it and see where you are coming from.

Here's two:
http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Nope. I asked:
"Provide me with just one peer-reviewed paper on some technical and
quantitative facet relating to climate science that you have actually
read thoroughly yourself, with good understanding, and which well
supports some conclusion you've made here on the topic that disagrees
with the IPCC AR4. Just one."

You replied with something at a web site that is about "seeking
innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems." That
is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, Rich. It's a "primer"
prepared for a 'public policy' purpose.

Caution: 184 MB video:
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

I already watched the whole thing, long before. One of the scientists
who was interviewed on the program insisted that he was lied to by the
producers before appearing, that his responses, as edited, were
grossly misleading and didn't present his perspective, and demanded to
have his presence removed. In later showings, they did that much.
Another scientist in England, prepared an analysis of the program for
his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at
least one of the graphs presented in the show had to have been
doctored up -- and he was able to show how and with which data, they
most likely did it.

Again. And I repeat myself, sadly. Provide me with just one
peer-reviewed paper on some technical and quantitative facet relating
to climate science that you have actually read thoroughly yourself,
with good understanding, and which well supports some conclusion
you've made here on the topic that disagrees with the IPCC AR4. Just
one.

Jon


The problem is Jon the only thing those that believe like you that
humans are the cause can come up with to fight the problem is punish
the U.S.A. and the E.U. for being able to change our world before the
"third world" got it's chance to. When and if China comes to the west
and asks politely for help to clean up thier problem with high sulfur
coal and destructive hydroelectric plans, then we who have the tech
should by all means help. For a price say the loss of all communist
control and free election. The freeing of Tebit. or perhaps the death
of one out of two Chinese, after all they have almost half the world
population just breathing they add untold millions of tonnes of C02 to
the atmosphere yearly, but seriously to try and punish the countries
that are trying to cut thier emissions while allowing developing
countries to propagate old technologies is a silly idea. We need a
world wide policy in order to make world wide changes. So to cut the
west off at the knees while allowing the developing world to polute
even more makes sense how?

Kuurus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... quantitative facet relating to climate science that you have actually ... is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, ... prepared for a 'public policy' purpose. ... One of the scientists ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... So Rich, just exactly where do you get your climate science ... since you also were just repeating ... is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... On Oct 1, 2:07 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian ... peer-reviewed paper on some technical and quantitative facet relating to ... climate science that you have actually read thoroughly yourself, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... peer-reviewed paper on some technical and quantitative facet relating to ... climate science that you have actually read thoroughly yourself, ... understanding, and which well supports some conclusion you've made here on ...
    (sci.electronics.design)