|
greenerguardian (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, sediments, every nation has begun to adopt and implement plans to cut CO2, based on a huge amount of scientific data showing that the Earth is warming to an extent likely to be damaging in the near future. They consider the debate to be over, in practical terms. These videos can give a distorted impression of how the world of science sees the evidence.
sediments28 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It really pains me that this 'debate' still continues. Just shows you the power politics has over our lives. AGW theory in virtually all its aspects is a farce.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"not "consensus" but universal,"
you lying bastard
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"not "consensus" but universal,"
grastog you liar. I have sent peer-reviewed works from the literature that show your side is wrong.
you are lying. Stop lying.
also you continue to post the same comments. you are a spammer. your conscience doesnt bother you??
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
now grastog is claiming to be a peer-reviewer, literally claiming to be a peer-reviewer, and i quote "As one who has participated in the peer review process as both reviewer and reviewee". previously he had claimed he has gotten grant money. but seeing how small his mind is he is probably lying on both counts.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
THE EARTH WILL CONTINUE TO COOL
2008, so far, is tied for #3 for fewest sunspots in the last 100 years. By end of December it could easily end up #2.
ziljn (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Since when did 'consensus' come to mean those who reviewed the IPCC report?"
Since the repeated statements were made that the "worlds top 2500 scientists..." and other derivatives of such claims. That includes all reviewers.
So mathematics ability qualifies Gavin but mathematics ability isn't good enough when we're talking about McIntyre, whose expertise in statistics has been proven time and again to climate "experts" practicing statistics w/o a license.
Hypocrisy.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
In the science literature, recognition of anthropogenic warming is not "consensus" but universal, based on an enormity of evidence readers can find there. For those without journal access, I've suggested the wikipedia "Global Warming" article as a starting point for climate change understanding, and "Climate Book" for those with mathematical sophistication. The IPCC WG consensus is also universal on major points, if not on all details. Reviewers are not WG scientists, nor always even scientists.
jffryfnt (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"I'm just putting your statements together."
You're twisting them beyond comprehension.
Since when did 'consensus' come to mean those who reviewed the IPCC report?
"Gavin holds no education in climatlogy or earth science, so his record is meaningless..again, you're own argument." I did not say this.YOU did. If you knew ANYTHING about Earth science, mathematical ability is certainly asset. I was attempting to focus your attention of the fact that he's well published in this field. Meaningless?
ziljn (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Heh.
According to you this consensus includes "anyone" who "asked" to review the report, including those apparently unqualified to do so. So what does that say about this consensus? It's your argument, not mine. I'm just putting your statements together.
But I see the simple logic trail eludes you so I'll try to be more direct in the future, and use smaller words perhaps.
Gavin holds no education in climatlogy or earth science, so his record is meaningless... again, you're own argument. |
