🚀 go-pugleaf

mh wrote:

> On Apr 10, 8:25 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>mh wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Right you are... NOT!
>>
>>http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/winter_bulletins/s...
>>
>>Read it and weep...  You're in my territory now doofus
>>
>>JT
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on the ozone depletion; but like I said before, I'm
> man enough to admit when I'm wrong.
> 
> Now, do you have any substantial argument with the rest of my post, or
> are you going to run back and hide behind Mapi's apron?
> 
> 


Why should I closely examine the remainder of your post?

If you had only taken the time to look into the complete background of 
the CFC issue, you would have found out that it was corporate America, 
(i.e. DuPont), that "engineered the whold thing.  You see, the patent on 
R12 (and its cousins) was running out.  Money is always the great 
motivator for seemingly political issues.

Now, maybe you should give a listen to one of my favorite libs...


http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/04/11/global_warming/index3.html


Oh, take the time to read ALL the pages that cover a variety of subjects 
and enlighten yourself with some independent thinking...

JT