Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

Glad we can agree that the messenger's credentials appear problematic. You will find that this holds true for the vast majority of the global warming denying crowd - they are almost exclusively funded by the fossil fuel industry which happens to have a strong interest in sowing doubt despite the scientific consensus.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good.

Are you actually in a position to make that determination? I know I'm not.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

Glad we can agree that the messenger's credentials appear problematic. You will find that this holds true for the vast majority of the global warming denying crowd - they are almost exclusively funded by the fossil fuel industry which happens to have a strong interest in sowing doubt despite the scientific consensus.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good.

Are you actually in a position to make that determination? I know I'm not.

Yes I am. It is corroborated by many sources and by common sense.

Again, you're just believing what the power's that be tell you. Sounds sheepish to me.

Care to prove that the scientists who disagree with the GW are funded by the oil industry?

And even if that were true, shouldn't you be looking at what is said, not who is saying it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

So in a nutshell this guy is arguing that heavy industry is actually beneficial to the environment.

That's like saying that vomiting is a good way to tone your stomach muscles; or that having high blood pressure means you have good circulation.

The Coal and Oil Industries are applying the same tactics that the Tobacco Industry had used for so many years to fight regulations....and people gobble their snake oil up like turkeys.

so how many miles a week is it you drive to work, round trip?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

And not one used to dispute that the world was flat either? But they also couldn't prove that the earth was flat.

Just as not one can prove that CO2 warms the earth, mainly because its getting colder.

I can prove that trees are dying of fungus in the U.P. of Michigan because Yoopers are eating too much mushroom and pooping in the woods too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

And not one used to dispute that the world was flat either? But they also couldn't prove that the earth was flat.

Just as not one can prove that CO2 warms the earth, mainly because its getting colder.

I can prove that trees are dying of fungus in the U.P. of Michigan because Yoopers are eating too much mushroom and pooping in the woods too.

Yes Joe, professional scientific research associations claimed that the world was flat.

Could you seriously get any more ridiculous?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

And not one used to dispute that the world was flat either? But they also couldn't prove that the earth was flat.

Just as not one can prove that CO2 warms the earth, mainly because its getting colder.

I can prove that trees are dying of fungus in the U.P. of Michigan because Yoopers are eating too much mushroom and pooping in the woods too.

Yes Joe, professional scientific research associations claimed that the world was flat.

Could you seriously get any more ridiculous?

It isn't ridiculous. Most major scientists back then did believe it was flat - they also believed larger objects fell faster than smaller ones, and that if you were sick, you had bad blood and needed to be drained.

Attacking the messenger again.

I merely provided the messenger's "credentials". The very fact that you call that an attack on the messenger would appear to suggest that said credentials are, shall we say, a bit problematic?

The credentials would make him less acceptable, no doubt. To anyone.

But most of the data (aside from industry helps plants) is good. The trend is cooler temps over the last 11 years (overall). But yet the Global Warming bandwagon chugs along.

If we want to clean up the air, fine with me. But you aren't going to arbitrarily end oil. Cap and Tax ain't the way to go. Most economic experts say it would kill the economy even more. But then that seems to be the goal of those in power.

Joseph, do you understand what peer review and scientific consensus mean?

Yes I do, and there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with global warming, so there is not consensus on it.

But in your mind, anyone who doesn't agree with it, is by default not a scientist. So therefore, 100% of scientists agree in your eyes.

Common sense can show you that the earth has cooled over the last 11 years while just as much fuel is consumed globally (moreso actually). But you completely ignore it, because you just can't accept it.

Even if GW were true, Cap and Tax wouldn't be the answer.

What is scientific consensus?

I feel sorry for you guys I really do. You believe whatever the DNC tells you. Even if it were true you think the US government can pass a bill and all will be hunky-dory.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

And not one used to dispute that the world was flat either? But they also couldn't prove that the earth was flat.

Just as not one can prove that CO2 warms the earth, mainly because its getting colder.

I can prove that trees are dying of fungus in the U.P. of Michigan because Yoopers are eating too much mushroom and pooping in the woods too.

Yes Joe, professional scientific research associations claimed that the world was flat.

Could you seriously get any more ridiculous?

It isn't ridiculous. Most major scientists back then did believe it was flat - they also believed larger objects fell faster than smaller ones, and that if you were sick, you had bad blood and needed to be drained.

Well that answered my question - clearly you can get more ridiculous

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A three legged liberal?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

That's because they're all sheep.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The problem is that there isn't a single major scientific association (not a single one) which disputes global warming.

That's because they're all sheep.

And living off the government teat! The rest of the scientists are in industry, and part of the "problem."

Edited October 13, 2009 by Lone Ranger