link
See, liberals can simply SAY man is destroying the Earth. They can try and destroy the US economy. They can make up stupid things like carbon credits.
or
You can be like MOST scientists and understand that climates change, and we are virtually helpless when it comes to controlling it.
Should we try and become less dependant on oil?
Yes
Should we go crazy and say the world is over in ten years?
No
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
You should note that this "breaking news" is from the blog of Sen. James Inhofe (actual breaking news) which references a blog which references another blog which links to this pdf file. Dare you to read it. Very dry, with a blatently telegraphed denouement.
Jimspice is right again. Also, the blog asserts that 48% of the papers are "neutral", but it doesn't specify whether those papers actually took a neutral position or didn't even attempt to make a judgment call one way or the other and that "makes" them neutral.
The fact that you're trying to use a blog post as a source is very telling.
Even if the actual report was a bit sketchy, I would still hold firm on my fundamental belief that whatever temp. change we are having right now is mostly caused by the natural cycle of the Earth's climate.
Jimspice is mistaken. The root of the report here is in a forthcoming article in the scientific journal ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, as was clear in the blog report at http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm that jimspice did NOT mention. The pdf file to which jimspice points is on a different subject but significant in itself in that it offers very strong (refereed) scientific case for reducing estimated climate sensitivity (how much change in global average temperature from a doubling of CO2) to about a third of what the IPCC and alarmists like Hansen and Gore have asserted.
The "scientific journal" in question publishes on a wide range of issues in topics the name suggests. However, looking through some of the "recent papers" its clear they favor a "free enterprise system" solution. Which is why we are in this problem in the first place. Its no wonder Inhofe is so tied up with this group. His bible thumping solutions will help little in making the world we live in a better place.
Game, next time try finding a real journal to quote from. Then we wont think you've stopped taking your meds. Thanks.
man, after reading E. Calvin Beisner parklife seems like s special ed student. It is the weekend, no students today.
I would still hold firm on my fundamental belief...
Which is your prerogative, game. But why does that justify your characterizing those who disagree as raving lunatics?
Should we go crazy and say the world is over in ten years?
This is more like the rantings of a lunatic. Nobody in the world has ever, ever suggested such a thing.
Except of course those who are waiting for the Rapture.
It seems the Democrats like Jim and parklife only think Democrat run Socialism, not capitalism must be the economic system of the world.
What a pair of crackpots.
I still have no idea why this is being debated so hard by the wingnuts. All I care about is that we do the things we are doing to stop global warming. Whether it exists or not is a moot point to me.
It is obvious we need clean air and water. It is obvious we need alternative fuel.And it is obvious we need it now and not lazzie faire tommorrow or whenever corporate America gets around to it. So who cares about debating global warming when it is time for ACTION!
OK, I like to think I can admit a mistake. Let's see if I can retrace my steps. Here is TheGame's original post, which references this InhofeEPW Press Blog post by Matthew Dempsey, which in turn references an earlierInhofe post by Marc Morano entitled New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global WarmingFears , which links to the pdf filefrom the Brookhaven Institute to which I refer. Dempsey's post also links to a
DailyTechblog post by Michael Asher. Asher discusses medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte's replication, using 2004-2007 data, of oft-cited Naomi Oreskes ' earler research showing wide support for anthropomorphicly generated climate change. Asher notes the
results have been submitted to the journal Energyand Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.
A couple of side notes:
1. Just because research has been submitted to a journal, does notmean it will be published,
2. Medical researcher?<
3. We are not made privy to the leaked paper.
So, we could either read the earlier cited report, or nothing, as it seems E. Calvin Beisner is suggesting. So, no, I don't think I was mistaken. I just followed a different link-tree than eCal. Spice
This is very interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Spice.
Post a Comment