GW Theory False!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,733
    An interesting article form the Canada Free Press.

    I particularly like the end comment

    As Jean-Francois Revel said: “How is it possible for a theory, which is false in its component parts, to be true as a whole.” In the case of ‘official’ climate science he could add that many parts of the whole are simply omitted. He explained the mentality that has pervaded the AGW supporters when he wrote, “A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence” His book titled, The Flight from Truth: The Reign of deceit in the Age of Information” tells it all.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25387
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Tim Ball, eh. Oh well, take anything you can. This deniar even went to court. Well, sort of.

    Tim Ball - SourceWatch

    In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge. Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball. In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.[10]

    Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.[10]

    In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald (“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”), Ball withdrew the suit in June 2007.[10]
     
  3. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Which is what I keep saying, the evidence seems to support global warming, but none of the models actually work at predicting known events. There is a huge flaw somewhere. All we have right now is a hypothesis because nothing has been tested, even if the data supports the conclusions.
     
  4. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,330
    Thanks Received:
    3,613
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,818
    canadafreepress. i guess it's settled then.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,733



    Oh not really, it's just fun to poke the ant hill every now and then. I allways get a laugh out of your responses:lol::lol::lol:
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,733



    Oh there is plenty of evidence to support natural ebb and flow from glacial to warm period to glacial again. The argument is whether man has an impact. So far no AGW proponent can point to empirical data that says yes. The data which they had collected mysteriously went "missing", imagine that you spend a few million bucks gathering data and then let the damn dog eat it....sheesh!

    They have some really bad computer (can't predict the weather ten days from now, nor can they accurately model weather that we have empirical data for) models that say "it's goin to happin reeeell sooon", but they can't point to any weather pattern or trend that has not occured before and more importantly happened without mans influence.

    The flaw is in the theory itself and the fact that it has become a cash cow for a very few people.....which they don't want to see put out to pasture.
     

Share This Page