🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 10, 8:26 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> pitchforks and torches wrote:
> > "mh" <hobrats...@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


Such well-reasoned debate tactics. It's not wonder you have the awe
and respect of ... um ... .