On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:21:10 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Keith Nuttle wrote:
Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis
There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer
review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political
agenda and not involved in science.

I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security
risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
It has been nearly 200 years and the debate on evolution is still going
on. Cancer has been a topic of investigation for over 60 years, and
still there is no cure for cancer.

How can the debate on the climate and global warming, a significantly
more complex system, be understood after about 20 years. The climate
cycles are over 100000 years in length and they claim to understand them
with about 200 years of data, of which the last 50 years are accurate.
Sounds like poor science to me.

If those that promote global warming truly believe that global warming
was a problem that had to be addressed they would be 100% behind nuclear
power which has NO greenhouse gasses. Since the supporters of global
warming are against nuclear energy, the only conclusion is it is
strictly politics.

Uh, there you go with your assumptions and wrong analysis that all
supporters of global warming are against nuclear energy. Also, I don't
think any scientist has stated that they totally understand the cyclic
phenomena of global warming. But, with things like ice core sampling
they know alot more about the weather a lot farther back than 200 years
than you apparently think they do. They also know from studying the core
samples that events like volcanoes released a tremendous amount of CO2
and in fact did have an impact on the weather. So, the question would
be, if the release of CO2 from a volcano had an affect that subsided
when the gases subsided, then why would anyone think that man isn't
contributing when we are pumping MILLIONS of pounds a day into the
atmosphere and it's continuous unlike a volcanic event?

Oh for cripes sakes. Why the hell don't you read some of the posts
that are made.

Yes, man is contributing. When I light a match I'm contributing. The
question is, does the contribution of mankind have any significant
effect on the warming of the planet (which may or may not be
occuring.)

Until the liberals who are the big collectors of money for the
reduction of 'carbon footprint' start pushing for nuclear technology,
their antics are a joke. Purely political.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous