Re: More Gore

On 27 mei, 19:30, Benj <bjac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 27, 8:55 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And this is the crux of the matter. The only way to estimate the
effects of CO2 is through scientific investigation, and that is what's
being done, with some alarming results.

The laws of physics and physical chemistry are pretty well known on a
small scale it's just that applying them to planetary scales is not so
simple. The WHOLE QUESTION of climate change needs some SERIOUS
investigation!  However, the problem is that there is a political
agenda that is interfering with pure science.  So we end up with dire
predictions arising out of the most bogus of models, one of the most
bogus of which is CO2 "greenhouse" effects.

What makes you think that? The detail of greenhouse effect is
painfully complicated, but the phsyics is straightforward - if there
wasn't a greenhouse effect the earth would be a lot colder than it is.

It's a mystery to me how the
likes of Eeyore, J.T., J.F., etc. have the gall to either ignore or to
impugn the consensus of  so many professional scientists. Where is
their data? Why aren't they publishing commentaries in professional
journals?

Add me to that list! There is no real "consensus" of scientists. What
there seems to be is a consensus of "scientists" in on the political
scam!  "Real" scientist HAVE been calling them down for their lies and
"spun" facts.

A small and somewhat idiosyncratic group of real scientists having
been getting a lot of publicity by taking up contrarian positions,
much like the guy who claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS. There is a
real scientific consensus in favour of anthropogenic global warming,
and the usual minority of sceptics.

And as a result they keep backing off and backing off on
their "theories". Now that CO2 has been shown to not have the
magnitude of effects they originally claimed

Where?

they now have backed off to some mysterious "feedback" theory to justify their dire predictions
and to justify their proposed political forced controls.  The original theories of this cabal

Which were?

have been torn down piece by piece by scientific papers and reports

such as?

and yet they still keep selling the lies to the public with clever "adjustments" to justify them.  If anyone
questions their "science" they get called "stupid" or "Insane".  Sure that's real "proof", right?

That's exactly the kind of argument you are presenting here. Support
at least a few of the propositions you are putting forward with
citations, and we may take you seriously, if the citations do point to
real work.

Why don't they completely dismiss other large swaths of
science as well? Seems to me that if there's a worldwide conspiracy of
climatologists at work then it's probably just the tip of the iceberg!

It is the AGW world-wide cabal that is dismissing large swaths of
science. And yes it IS probably the "tip of the iceberg"! My
suggestion is to just "follow the money"!  Please tell me why ANYONE
would accept the word of a POLITICIAN as to what science has to say
about ANY subject?  Why isn't anyone asking just HOW the proven lies

Citation? The famous British court case didn't prove any lies, though
it certainly came up with some statements that were open to diverse
explanations.

of Algore won him a Nobel Prize, an Oscar and and Emmy?  An Oscar for
the proven lies of Michael Moore's fake "documentary" was a big enough
scandal, but this really proves that these so-called awards are
totally meaningless and controlled by people with some kind of
agenda.

So far, all you have proved is that you don't think that they got
awarded to the right people.

The only problem is while things go to hell in a handbasket, no real
work is being done because they know "you can fool some of the people
all of the time!"

Your contentless argument does seem to rely on this.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea
    ... "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, ... increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself ... the result of rising temperature. ... These particles have a braking effect on global warming, ...
    (soc.culture.bulgaria)
  • Re: OT- Global warming or not
    ... You don't believe the scientists that get grants who say that ... global warming is manmade... ... So, you want us to stop emitting CO2 for awhile, see what the effect ... begin to sacrifice to reduce your carbon footprint, ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Booker on climate and EU incompetence.
    ... Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. ... All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train. ... Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... So who is the idiot pooring out all the CO2 over top of Mauna Loa? ... If you believe that they know what they are doing, and then there are other scientists like Dr Gray say they don't. ... I would really like a way to follow the money to find out. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT- Global warming or not
    ... You don't believe the scientists that get grants who say that ... that global warming is manmade... ... So, you want us to stop emitting CO2 for awhile, see what the ... and begin to sacrifice to reduce your carbon footprint, ...
    (rec.scuba)
Quantcast