🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:15 -0700, AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (2ndSight) wrote:

>> On 29 Sep 2004 19:38:28 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org (Economic
>> Democracy) wrote:
>> 
>> >* With almost every combination of greenhouse-warmed oceans and
>> >atmosphere and formulas for storm dynamics, the results were the same:
>> >more powerful storms and more rainfall
>
>Wm James wrote in reply: 
>> Neither of which has been found in nature yet, only in the failed and
>> failing computer models.
>> 
>> Learn a little science and stop making a fool of yourself.  
>> 
>> William R. James
>
>New Message:
>
>Economic Democracy, how good are the credentials of the US government
>scientist who's announcing these results?
>
>He's fairly well up there in the profession, isn't he?  
>
>William R. James writes that we should "learn a little science," and I
>agree.  But the little science that I learned in graduate school at
>the University of Michigan 30 years ago indicated that the "greenhouse
>effect" was real, and that
>global climate change should be on the way. At least this was what my
>professors believed at the time.
>
>This also seems to be the view today of the many high-level scientists
>around the world who have signed on to the IPCC reports.  However, I
>admit that my "little science" doesn't really enable me to judge the
>competing claims of the ranking experts in the Global Climate Change
>camp and the Denialist camp, respectively.
>
>For me, that makes the reputations of various experts important.  So
>how good is this guy's reputation?  Why should we believe this
>government expert
>as opposed to, say, William R. James?


Why shouldn't you believe the tobacco companies "scientists" who
claimed smoking was safe and not addictive?  Could it be because they
were paid to ignore the scientific method and find the conclusions
they came to?   What's the difference with the global warming scam?
You have a handful of scam peddlers with scienctific credentials
peddling it in direct opposition to the data. There are no scientists
peddling it. There are more than a few, thousands in fact, who do not
buy into it and state quite clearly that there is no evidence to
support it.  Even the IPCC's report had to admit no evidence, but
instead of basing their conclusion on science, they concluded that
global warming was occuring for they needed more sensitive instruments
(translated: "More tax dollars") to find it.  If you want to easily
and quickly test a source, simply check for what they claim as the
major greenhouse gas.  The vast majority of them claim it's CO2, few
even mention water vapor which makes up nearly all of the greenhouse
gasses on earth. CO2 is only 3.618%, of which a mere 0.117% is man
made. And that ignores the CO2 man prevents from being released by
nature by controlling forrect fires, btw.  Another test is to see if
they mention the effects of water changing state on the temperature of
the planet. If they don't, then congradulations. You have found a
source that's either totally clueless or blatently fraudulent.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the parrot "Economic Democracy"
to even attempt to refute anything with facts.  He parrots
testimonials like a typical scam peddler trying to sell any scam to
ignorant suckers. Watch faith healers, fat pill peddlers, and spammers
use the same technique.  That's how Kyoto is peddled, and for the same
reason.  It's not designed to or intended to reduce CO2 emmmissions
anyway.  Read it.  It's designed to make western free nations pay
third world dictators for the "right" to burn fuel.  So it's no wonder
the UN, and club made up primarily of third world dictators with their
hands out, support it. And it's no wonder the america hating left wing
kooks love the scam either, it fits their agenda.  But it's certianly
not science or anything related to science.

William R. James