Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie wrote:

Keep posting it, ican, and maybe someday the global warmers will actually read it and acknowledge it as fact.

Thanks!

I assure you, I'ill continue posting these statements, about one per day, until all are posted.

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

13.
Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics." The abstract of the paper reads in part, "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." Gerlich and Tscheuschner's study concluded, "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."

0 Replies

Quote:

400 scientists

Quote:

not a minority

We have 799 scientists in the entire world.

That's the most alarming number of all
K
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Obviously, there are many more scientists than what become involved in signing onto something like global warming, or signing onto something expressing their skepticism. There is really no way to know what the numbers are, but hopefully we don't do science by voting, and that is why the term "consensus" is so ridiculous and inappropriate. If this is what this issue is reduced to, it is a sad day for science. Climate science has been hijacked by politicians, hence this is where we are now.

0 Replies

Yes, I doubt you'll trip up Ican on something like that.

He has been very careful not to specify what those 400 scientists are not a minority of. Smile

0 Replies

So basically, he used a term like "minority" incorrectly.

Saying that 400 scientists are

A) Prominent
B) Not a minority

Requires both qualification and quantification. Did you misspeak? How do you define "prominent?" You seem to spit in the face of the IPCC as an authority, but it would seem that they are the prominent scientists in the field. If you want us to accept these individuals as being on par with the scientists on the IPCC, you'd better back it up. Lastly, you'd better clear up your idea of what "not a minority" is.

Thanks for clearing that up in advance.
K
O

0 Replies

Um TKO, I think on this thread you should sort of avoid criticizing other members for saying something incorrectly. Pot/kettle all that, and you are a bit vulnerable here on that score. And considering that Ican is posting a series of related posts, all prefaced in the same manner, it is likely he isn't using it incorrectly at all.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Um TKO, I think on this thread you should sort of avoid criticizing other members for saying something incorrectly. Pot/kettle all that, and you are a bit vulnerable here on that score. And considering that Ican is posting a series of related posts, all prefaced in the same manner, it is likely he isn't using it incorrectly at all.

If I had corrected his spelling or typing perhaps I'd be in hot water, but I can certainly ask him to clarify his use of words spelled correctly or otherwise.

If you are backing up Ican on this, I will then let you defend for him the use of "not a minority" and explain it.

Eevn a msitpyed sntenace can covney a good ieda, but a bad ieda is jsut a bad ieda no mttaer how prefcelty seplled or tpeyd.

T
K
O

0 Replies

A new Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans-Global-Warming-Worries.aspx

Little Increase in Americans' Global Warming Worries
While 61% of Americans say the effects of global warming have already begun, just a little more than a third say they worry about it a great deal, a percentage that is roughly the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Um TKO, I think on this thread you should sort of avoid criticizing other members for saying something incorrectly. Pot/kettle all that, and you are a bit vulnerable here on that score. And considering that Ican is posting a series of related posts, all prefaced in the same manner, it is likely he isn't using it incorrectly at all.

If I had corrected his spelling or typing perhaps I'd be in hot water, but I can certainly ask him to clarify his use of words spelled correctly or otherwise.

If you are backing up Ican on this, I will then let you defend for him the use of "not a minority" and explain it.

Eevn a msitpyed sntenace can covney a good ieda, but a bad ieda is jsut a bad ieda no mttaer how prefcelty seplled or tpeyd.

T
K
O

No TKO because I choose not to nitpick other members that have paid their dues on the thread and proved to be pretty reliable in what they post and who further have clearly demonstrated that they have the intelligence to understand what they post.

I merely pointed out that the phrase you're taking issue with goes back at least several dozen pages. If you think it is so important, why don't you go back to the origin and put it into its original context. I am content to believe that the context is most likely other than you wish to make it.

0 Replies

Either you can defend it or you can't. You choose the latter.

T
K
O

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

14.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...
I merely pointed out that [Ican's] phrase [you, Diest, are] taking issue with goes back at least several dozen pages. If you think it is so important, why don't you go back to the origin and put it into its original context. I am content to believe that the context is most likely other than you wish to make it.

:wink:

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...
I merely pointed out that [Ican's] phrase [you, Diest, are] taking issue with goes back at least several dozen pages. If you think it is so important, why don't you go back to the origin and put it into its original context. I am content to believe that the context is most likely other than you wish to make it.

:wink:

Got something in your eye there boss? You seem to have a frog in your throat too.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

...
I merely pointed out that [Ican's] phrase [you, Diest, are] taking issue with goes back at least several dozen pages. If you think it is so important, why don't you go back to the origin and put it into its original context. I am content to believe that the context is most likely other than you wish to make it.

:wink:

Got something in your eye there boss? You seem to have a frog in your throat too.

T
K
O

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

15.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Either you can defend it or you can't. You choose the latter.

T
K
O

I chose to go on my experience with Ican's posts. You chose to not verify a statement you made criticizng his post. I trust you found Ican's explanation satisfactory.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Either you can defend it or you can't. You choose the latter.

T
K
O

I chose to go on my experience with Ican's posts. You chose to not verify a statement you made criticizng his post. I trust you found Ican's explanation satisfactory.

Which explanation?

This one:

Quote:

:wink:

Or this one:

Quote:

T
K
O

0 Replies

Either you have a reading disability or hope everybody else has a reading disability or you're really making an effort to make a joke, TKO. Which is it?

0 Replies

TKO, you're obviously very intelligent. Intelligence doesn't translate easily to doing the right thing. Take a look at who is leading the GW bandwagon. Mr. Gore is a blowhard. We were so very lucky that Bill Clinton was not removed from office while that piece of garbage was VP.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know