Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.
From: Robert Sturgeon (rsturge_at_inreach.com)
Date: 01/22/05
- Next message: awe: "clothing with the capacity to turn the sun's power"
- Previous message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:19:35 -0800
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:38:11 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:43:07 -0500, Michael Davis
>> <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snips)
>>
>>
>>>Models are nice. The Earth is a lot more complex than any model
>>>though. I remember the models that predicted the coming
>>>"population bomb" disaster back in the 70s, the coming ice age
>>>disaster back in the 80s and the coming Y2K disaster back in the
>>>90s. I'd like to see some actual hard evidence of some CO2 driven
>>>global warming before buying into this end of the world scenario
>>>du jour. Is that really too much to ask?
>>
>>
>> Apparently so. Global Warming is now the Official Doctrine
>> of the "scientific" community, and woe to anyone who is
>> skeptical. You'll notice that, throughout history, the less
>> real evidence any given theory has to support it, the more
>> extreme its supporters are, whether the theory is religious,
>> economic, political, scientific, whatever;
>
>You are claiming science is based on belief?
No, and I can't imagine why you'd think I am.
> If not, why lump it in with
>religion?
I lumped it in with several disciplines that are subject to
group think and political and/or religious correctness.
> Why label the concern of scientist as "Official Doctrine"?
Because it is.
>You accepted the above list without question as a representation of the
>issue of global warming. Why was that? Population Bomb was written by a
>single author. There is little doubt that another ice age is coming,
>that has been the dominant mode of the earths climate for shudders of
>thousands of years, it is not about models.
Of course not, but global warming is.
> Y2K had nothing to do with
>models. Why do you think it didn't happen? You really should answer this
>one.
It didn't happen because people were warned of their Y2K
risks and took appropriate actions to counter them. The
risks were easily verified, so there was no serious dispute
as to whether the problems were real. In most cases, it was
a simple matter to set the system date or the data date
ahead and see what happened. I doubt there's any way to set
the earth's system date ahead to 2030 to see what happens.
>There is no certainty in science and it works very well that way. A lot
>of scientist have good confidence that something potentially dangerous
>may be happening to our climate. It has nothing to do with beliefs, it
>is about the data.
And there are a lot of scientists who don't think anything
potentially dangerous is happening. And that has nothing to
do with their believes, either.
>> People like being scared. Fear sells. And gets grants.
>
>Isn't this the premise of that fiction? You know, he went so far as to
>say some guys were controlling the weather. Is that also true?
No, it was a novel - laced with inconvenient facts.
-- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
- Next message: awe: "clothing with the capacity to turn the sun's power"
- Previous message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
