🚀 go-pugleaf

pitchforks and torches wrote:

> "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....
> 
> 

...and full of shit!

JT