🚀 go-pugleaf

"mh" <hobratschk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176249439.450633.177840@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

A 'Tip'O'th'Mallet' to ya, sir. Good post....well reasoned, and well stated. 
Carry on....
>