|
Crichton on global warming skepticism
|
Crichton on global warming skepticism
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote:
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. His version of climate change is like the Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) version of Christian church history and for the same reasons, it sells books, gets you interviewed, invited to be guest speaker etc etc. David |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:57:41 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. His version of climate change is like the Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) version of Christian church history and for the same reasons, it sells books, gets you interviewed, invited to be guest speaker etc etc. He should publish a research paper. Should be a good laugh. |
equal time to you guy's God
|
equal time to you guy's God
Frank wrote:
http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
In article ,
Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html Good for you, Frank, a real citation. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy then, maybe, we can have a conversation. Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity? If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which we are unaware, not going extinct? Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction around the world). Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose? -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
Climate Change bleevers
On 1/23/2010 3:14 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been caught with its pants down again, this time with bogus claims about the Himalayan glaciers. R. K. Pachauri has admitted the claims were false, but somehow this "only strengthened the credibility" of the IPCC. Best regards, Bob |
equal time to you guy's God
In article ,
Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html So much for an honest intellectual discussion. Why let facts get in the way, eh, Frank, when you can use ad hominem attacks? Visiting one's wrath upon the messenger is soooo traditional, Frank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2/15/AR2008021 502901.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR washingtonpost.com Opinions Outlook The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces By Susan Jacoby Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01 "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations. . . . the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism. The toxic brew of anti-rationalism and ignorance hurts discussions of U.S. public policy on topics from health care to taxation. There is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism; rote efforts to raise standardized test scores by stuffing students with specific answers to specific questions on specific tests will not do the job. Moreover, the people who exemplify the problem are usually oblivious to it. ("Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture," Hofstadter noted.) It is past time for a serious national discussion about whether, as a nation, we truly value intellect and rationality. If this indeed turns out to be a "change election," THE LOW LEVEL OF DISCOURSE IN A COUNTRY WITH A MIND TAUGHT TO AIM AT LOW OBJECTS OUGHT TO BE THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CHANGE AGENDA (capitals mine). -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
Climate Change bleevers
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:01:07 -0600, zxcvbob wrote:
On 1/23/2010 3:14 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been caught with its pants down again, this time with bogus claims about the Himalayan glaciers. R. K. Pachauri has admitted the claims were false, but somehow this "only strengthened the credibility" of the IPCC. You can find bullshit in any science. However, it is irrelevent as it'll be discredited. This is really basic stuff. |
Climate Change bleevers
In article ,
zxcvbob wrote: On 1/23/2010 3:14 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been caught with its pants down again, this time with bogus claims about the Himalayan glaciers. R. K. Pachauri has admitted the claims were false, but somehow this "only strengthened the credibility" of the IPCC. Best regards, Bob http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/sc...Envirobrf.html Regret on Himalayan Glaciers Estimate By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: January 20, 2010 An international scientific panel overseen by the United Nations expressed "regret" on Wednesday for publishing an unsupported estimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers were melting. The estimate, included in a landmark 2007 report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that the glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The figure was culled from a dated magazine interview with an Indian glacier scientist who now denies that he used that number. Although there is abundant evidence that glaciers are retreating, scientists differ on the speed of that trend and which glaciers will be affected. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
Climate Change bleevers
In article ,
zxcvbob wrote: On 1/23/2010 3:14 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been caught with its pants down again, this time with bogus claims about the Himalayan glaciers. R. K. Pachauri has admitted the claims were false, but somehow this "only strengthened the credibility" of the IPCC. Best regards, Bob http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...layan-glaciers -mistake -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
equal time to you guy's God
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
"Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html Good for you, Frank, a real citation. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy then, maybe, we can have a conversation. Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity? If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which we are unaware, not going extinct? Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction around the world). Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose? -- If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you be trying to burn more fossils fuels? A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change everything as we know it. Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause unprecedented death and destruction. |
equal time to you guy's God
In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You're just playing dumb, right? -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
In article ,
"aluckyguess" wrote: "Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html Good for you, Frank, a real citation. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy then, maybe, we can have a conversation. Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity? If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which we are unaware, not going extinct? Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction around the world). Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose? -- If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you be trying to burn more fossils fuels? A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change everything as we know it. Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause unprecedented death and destruction. http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2 0temp%20patterns.pdf http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on publicity, or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that they sees it? Again, the worst case scenarios: (1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or (2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming" will bring. Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses for those that use fossil fuels. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
equal time to you guy's God
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
Wildbilly wrote:
In article , "aluckyguess" wrote: "Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html Good for you, Frank, a real citation. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy then, maybe, we can have a conversation. Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity? If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which we are unaware, not going extinct? Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction around the world). Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose? -- If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you be trying to burn more fossils fuels? A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change everything as we know it. Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause unprecedented death and destruction. http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2 0temp%20patterns.pdf http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on publicity, or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that they sees it? Again, the worst case scenarios: (1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or (2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming" will bring. Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses for those that use fossil fuels. He is yanking your chain. David |
equal time to you guy's God
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:41:37 -0800, Wildbilly wrote:
In article , "aluckyguess" wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You're just playing dumb, right? No. Religions have no evidence whatsoever. Most are circular: bible says god exists; bible is word of god; god said so, etc. That isn't evidence. Lots of people believing something isn't evidence. Feelings of someting aren't evidence. |
equal time to you guy's God
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote:
aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Wildbilly wrote: In article , "aluckyguess" wrote: "Wildbilly" wrote in message ... In article , Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html Good for you, Frank, a real citation. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy then, maybe, we can have a conversation. Does not knowing the values of the variable in the equation N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL change its' veracity? If species that we know are going extinct, why wouldn't species of which we are unaware, not going extinct? Whether you numb your brain on my cite or not, we still are left with the choices of (1) acting against greenhouse gas emissions (and look silly if "global warming' isn't happening), or (2) not acting against greenhouse gas emissions (causing unprecedented death and destruction around the world). Tell me, Frank, which bet would you prefer to lose? -- If the earth was cooling (as thought in the 70's and 80's) would you be trying to burn more fossils fuels? A slight warming is actually a good thing,(natural occurrence) it gives more land to grow things that are needed for an expanding population. In the next 100 years technology will completely change everything as we know it. Make believe greenhouse gas emissions isn't going to cause unprecedented death and destruction. http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resource...obal%20scale%2 0temp%20patterns.pdf http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf Who you gonna believe? A science fiction writer that lives on publicity, or some nondescript scientists, that tells it the way that they sees it? Again, the worst case scenarios: (1) Spend what little money that we have left to suppress greenhouse gases, and risk derision for being gullible fools, or (2) Do nothing to prevent the misery and death that "global warming" will bring. Nobody has a financial gain, but there could be some financial loses for those that use fossil fuels. He is yanking your chain. David Possibly, or he could be a corporate stooge, or just dumb. On the gardening front, my two stevia plants that survived over winter last year under two 24" T5 florescent lights, are thriving under 4 48" T5s this year. Hoping to start geminating spinach, kale, Swiss chard, and peas this week. When May gets here I want to have some large plants to put in the ground. I've mulched the beds (a little over 600 sq. ft.) and sown rye and buckwheat, which will get cut and covered over with a fresh layer of alfalfa (lucern), two weeks before planting. How's your garden coming along this year? Is your water holding up? -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
equal time to you guy's God
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David |
equal time to you guy's God
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David In other words, you have no evidence. |
equal time to you guy's God
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David In other words, you have no evidence. By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is warming (at least in part) because of our use of fossil fuels, and the large herds of cattle being raised for human consumption(methane). Whatever the cause, more methane is being released as the arctic tundra warms up, which will only accelerate global warming. If the oceans warm a bit more, frozen methane anhydride will be released, and global warming will accelerate again. OK, this is speculation from some of the world's best minds. They could be wrong, but, then again, they could be right. It seems that the wise man, given a choice of looking foolish or dead, would pick foolish. Or do you suggest that we hunker down like ol' Harry Truman did when ordered to evacuate the region around Mt. St. Helens? Why do you wish to put humanity in harm's way, without proof? -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines |
equal time to you guy's God
This is way off topic and is getting boring. Let's just drop it!
Glenn Lynn On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David |
equal time to you guy's God
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David In other words, you have no evidence. Too thick to understand too proud to give up. David |
equal time to you guy's God
Glenn Lynn wrote:
This is way off topic and is getting boring. Let's just drop it! Glenn Lynn You are right. David |
equal time to you guy's God
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:29:58 -0800, Wildbilly wrote:
In article , AZ Nomad wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:42:26 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:49:20 +1100, David Hare-Scott wrote: aluckyguess wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... Frank wrote: http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html You don't get it. It is not your God or your authority figure that matters - it is the evidence. David What evidence? You are not serious (unless you are claiming to be a home-schooled 14 year old) so this doesn't warrant a reply. David Because you have no evidence. Not at all but I am not going to start in with a 500 pages book. My reply was about the method of forming your views and understanding not about the evidence itself. The Buddha/Gore joke suggests that the matter is religious - I was saying that it shouldn't be. David In other words, you have no evidence. By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is maybe I misfollowed the thread. I thought somebody was making a claim that god or gods exist. |
equal time to you guy's God
In article ,
says... By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is maybe I misfollowed the thread. I thought somebody was making a claim that god or gods exist. The thread is about global warming. Frank threw a rather dumb monkey wrench into the mechanism by changing the subject line and posting a link to http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html --an irrelevancy and in context, I think an ad hominem. I've stayed out of the mix to this point because I believe the small fry AGW chiquitita pequeño tiranitos require no answer that absorbs more than a moment of my time. Generally I think AGW types have no instinct for the opportunity embedded in an wholistic response to global warming. |
equal time to you guy's God
On Jan 25, 12:15*am, phorbin wrote:
In article , says... By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is maybe I misfollowed the thread. *I thought somebody was making a claim that god or gods exist. The thread is about global warming. Frank threw a rather dumb monkey wrench into the mechanism by changing the subject line and posting a link to http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html--an irrelevancy and in context, I think an ad hominem. I've stayed out of the mix to this point because I believe the small fry AGW chiquitita pequeño tiranitos require no answer that absorbs more than a moment of my time. Generally I think AGW types have no instinct for the opportunity embedded in an wholistic response to global warming. Not sure I should continue thread but its raining today. Originally I was giving reference to Crichton and from responses to post was getting answers from a crowd that threats global warming as a religion, thus the Gore Budda post. Go back and read Crichton. Many years ago, I read "Earth in the Balance" and it was perfectly obvious where Gore was going. It's a political tome, not technical. As someone pointed out recently in C&E News, the science is good but the politics are bad. |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
AZ Nomad wrote in
: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple statement "he is uneducated on the subject." Can you explain you own theory? If you have one! I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:43:27 GMT, Part_No wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote in : On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple statement "he is uneducated on the subject." Can you explain you own theory? If you have one! I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life I'm going to ignore your ad hominem. You suggest that crighton is educated about the subject. Please tell us about his credentials. |
Crichton on global warming skepticism
On Jan 26, 11:39*am, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:43:27 GMT, Part_No wrote: AZ Nomad wrote in : On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank wrote: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html he is uneducated on the subject. * You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple statement "he is uneducated on the subject." Can you explain you own theory? If you have one! I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life I'm going to ignore your ad hominem. * You suggest that crighton is educated about the subject. *Please tell us about his credentials. Crichton, of course was educated as an MD and you can call this science as he evaluated facts with a critical eye. His "State of Fear" while fiction has, I believe, a couple of hundred references to global warming studies. GW was not intent of book but he arrived at his conclusions from his in depth research for the book. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter