On Dec 19, 9:47*am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

That's half false. Obviously, global warming occurs. However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

--
Art

On Dec 26, 12:37*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it..

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
That's half false. Obviously, global warming occurs. However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

--
Art

On Dec 26, 9:48*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:42:51 -0800 (PST), z
wrote:

On Dec 26, 9:48*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:37 pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:
* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.
Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)
Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.

Common sense says it's crap. I've been around a while and in just my
lifetime - Nuclear war was gonna destroy the planet; then the ozone hole
was gonna kill us all; now it's global warming. 10 years from now there
will be a new doomsday theory.

There have been people that claim "the end is near" as far back as
recorded history and they all have one thing in common. They were wrong.
Many people just don't believe them anymore and I'm one of them. Has
nothing to do with right or left wing.

Even if man is causing an "unnatural" rise in CO2, nature has an
incredible ability to bring things back into balance. There is little if
anything that man can do to this planet that nature hasn't done on a
much larger scale.

Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

you brought offspring into this world ?

offspring who will use up more and more resources that can NOT easily
be replaced?

You selfish unthinking *******. Thanks to YOU Earth will overheat
turning into a HELL planet.

z wrote:


Oh, I'm not worried about the planet. I'm worried about my kids.
They're not nearly as sturdy as the planet.

Then teach them the lessons from the fable "Chicken Little".

--
Art