🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> 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?
>

Because then you'd realize that CFCs are only a minor part of the
point I was making; but that would then make you realize that your
continued focus on CFCs is a red herring, and you can't have that, can
you?