🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "charliekilo" <miles_kra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Carter" <qhk6cx...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:OsGdnU5rQ524h4HbnZ2dnUVZ_oipnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > charliekilo wrote:
> >> "bob" <b...@indigo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:461cb185.2365796@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >>>Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Nope, he don't...  I prefer to listen to the naysayers that are for the
> >>>>most part highly qualified independent thinkers such as:
> >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
> >>>>He is one of an increasing number of prominent scientists tossin' cold
> >>>>water on the GW hysteria...
>
> >>>Perhaps you would list some other "prominent scientists"?
> >>>The one you cited doesn't exactly have much credibility.
> >>>This clown makes money pandering to gullible fools:
>
> >> Yeah, MIT generally hires clowns as department heads... we can also
> >> include Dr. William Grey another promiment scientist.
>
> >> Here are some other links for your reading enjoyment (includes comments
> >> from prominent scientists):
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-climate5jan05,0,1965037.st...
> >>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
> >>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
>
> > It has come to my attention that people are posting links in this thread
> > to articles they didn't even read. I looked a couple of yours and I am
> > suspecting that might be the case here. If you have a position you want to
> > defend then come on out and say what it is. Cite your data. Make some
> > statements of fact.
>
> Personally, my position is skeptical. If it (man induced GW) were based on
> science, it could be proven...by every scientist... in a mathematical proof.
> Until then, I look at both sides and don't, in knee-jerk fashion, blame the
> U.S..

Ya know, one can accept that humans are one of the primary
contributors to global climate change via CO2 emissions and not blame
the U.S. solely.

While it is true that the U.S.'s per-capita CO2 emissions are the
largest, the problem is only going to get worse as China and other
countries increase their emissions.

Thing is, there's not much we can do about those other countries; we
can find ways to reduce our emissions. Who knows, maybe in doing so,
we'll come up with new products and industries that those countries
will then buy from us.

Remember the problem with the ozone hole? It was blamed on CFCs. The
U.S. led the way in replacing those CFCs with other compounds. It's a
strategy that appears to have worked -- despite the doom and gloom
from naysers who predicted all sorts of economic woe if we tried to
get rid of CFCs.

Also, you might want to re-examine your requirement that every
scientist be able to prove global warming via mathematical proof.

Proof requires a demonstration that in every instance, a theory or
physical law yields the same results. That's impossible. Consider
Newtonian physics -- we haven't measured the motion of every single
object in the universe and shown that they all obey the Second Law.
What science has done is take a large statistical sample of and shown
that Newton's Second Las is consistently obeyed by objects in our
universe. That does not constitute proof - merely statistical
likelihood.

If even Newton's laws can't be proven, then surely no other scientific
theory is provable. The same holds for global warming.