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

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:37:19 -0500, 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_scient ific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phy sical_Science_Basis

And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists
out there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:45:57 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:37:19 -0500, 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_scien tific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Ph ysical_Science_Basis

And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists out
there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change...

Oh no, it's just your list was so small, I thought those scientists might
get lonely.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:51:49 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:45:57 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:37:19 -0500, 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_scie ntific_assessment_of_global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_P hysical_Science_Basis

And this was posted to refute my claim that there were no scientists out
there that subscribed Anthropogenic Climate Change...

Oh no, it's just your list was so small, I thought those scientists might
get lonely.

Size is relative, and it's not my list, relatively speaking. It was
posted to refute a claim that was stated as fact, a clear implication
that such a list did not exist.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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.

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
m...
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

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.

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
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.

You're just playing with words. "Debate" is a meaningless phrase when it
comes to evolution.

Many cancers have been cured.


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.

You're very clearly not a scientist familiar with the subject. Thus, you
rely on wild exaggerations promoted by unreliable sources.


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.

No one "promotes" global warming, except perhaps polluters. The solution to
global climate change can be partially addressed by nuclear, but not
completely. Reduction in meat consumption is also a partial (and
significant) solution. If you're talking about environmentalists, since your
language is a bit fuzzy, many are willing to consider nuclear energy, many
are not. There are waste issues with nuclear fission technology that hasn't
been solved, not to mention security issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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?