The Mind of a Republican (why they are evil)

So all the organizations I posted are...what then? Non-existant? Lying? What?

There is very big difference between a group of people sharing a belief and consensus or opinion held by a majority. Despite what you may like to think the groups you list dont' even come close to be the majority of scientits that have researched the topic.

Who should I trust regarding whether the claims are accurate...you or various national and international scientific organizations? Tell me Bern...do you honestly think you are more reliable than all of them?

When are you gonna quit resorting to this stupid tactic? It's such a cop out. The whole time I have in fact encouraged you to not take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. I didn't pull this stuff out of thin air. It's your typical attack the messenger tactic because it's so much easier than finding out if what was said is accurate or not.


I'm sorry when did I say it can't be true? And please explain how time is cyclical. I'd also like to know how your great grandmothers life is cyclical, considering she is dead. She going to come back anytime soon?

You said you will take the word of the more recent research, which inherently implies that you don't believe the evidence I cited to be true. You in fact do know that climate does occur in cycles because there are ice ages every 90,000 years or so. The evidence from the two scientists simply found that there are less extreme cycles that occur between these longer periods. As to cycles ,gosh life and death, seasons, rotation around the sun, days, months, weeks, years. Plants comeing out every spring, el nino, la nina, hurricane intensity, grouse populations, deer shedding their antlers every year and growing new ones every year, ica ages, sunspots. Want me to go on?

Lmao...yes I'm lazy, thats it. If you think reading information from the internet will give you the expertise to back up an opinion on climate change, you are an idiot. You need to learn how little you really know about the world. People spend their entire lifetimes trying to figure this stuff out, and usually they fail. You won't be able to do it with your little side project.

You are by your own admission. You prefer to defer instead of check validity. I choose to learn. You know nothing about the amount of material I've read on the issue. If you think the only thing I've read about this is what's on the internet you'd be wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to understand a lot of this. Your explanation is exactley why there are sheep like you in the world who take whatever opinion is popular at the time because you simply refuse to find out for yourself copping with this 'i'm just not smart enough to understand this, so i'll just beleive whatever mr. x says' This is simply another excuse on your part to avoid learning about a belief that doesn't fit your view. And truly asanine attempt to discredit me.

Evidence needs to be corroborated by many other things. This has not been.

That isotopes can tell us temperature in years past has been corraborated several times over and rather standard practice in the scientific commmunity. Again you don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself it will take you all of 5 minutes to find out. I'll even help you out a little. Below is a link to discussion conducted by the Hudson Institute of recently published work that summarizes much of the research on the alternative view.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf

and here are some more fun factoids about the holy grail of climate change research

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21811

Actually all you've done is research to attempt to find alternative theories about global warming.

Which you haven't done at all. You choose to defer to the people that fit your beliefs and stick your head in the sand, discredit the messenger, or whatever lame ass excuse you can think of at the time to not have to expose yourself to information that doesn't fit your beleifs.
 
It does not matter what party you are in, most democrats seem to do things based on research or substantial quantified evidence, where as conservatives tend to do things for the betterment of the party.

To me, its not a football game. Republicans have had power because conservatives view an election in the same way they view a football game. They just want the party to win because it is thier party.

Now when you bring up liberalism, that is what kills the moderate democratic party, because they are so against anything conservative....it hurts them in the elections because they are on planet left and are unwilling to move. Thats liberalism, but dont confuse all democrats with far left nutjobs. Anyone too far to the left or right, is not to be trusted.

I do wish normal republicans did a little bit more research before they voted. Blind party voting, hurts everyone. (Bush's second term is proof) The two party system will always be opposite, maybe a third party is needed?

How is it possible to have a view point like this that is so 180 degrees from reality?
 
There is very big difference between a group of people sharing a belief and consensus or opinion held by a majority. Despite what you may like to think the groups you list dont' even come close to be the majority of scientits that have researched the topic.

Someone posted a link a while back that showed that a slim majority of scientific articles published supported global warming. And regardless, even if its NOT a majority, it is the ONLY theory which has a large part of the scientific community behind it.


When are you gonna quit resorting to this stupid tactic? It's such a cop out. The whole time I have in fact encouraged you to not take my word for it. Go find out for yourself. I didn't pull this stuff out of thin air. It's your typical attack the messenger tactic because it's so much easier than finding out if what was said is accurate or not.

*sigh* two laymen arguing about climate change is retarded. You need to realize how little you know.


You said you will take the word of the more recent research, which inherently implies that you don't believe the evidence I cited to be true.

I think it is either:

1) Inaccurate
2) Irrelevant
3) A small impact.

You in fact do know that climate does occur in cycles because there are ice ages every 90,000 years or so. The evidence from the two scientists simply found that there are less extreme cycles that occur between these longer periods. As to cycles ,gosh life and death, seasons, rotation around the sun, days, months, weeks, years. Plants comeing out every spring, el nino, la nina, hurricane intensity, grouse populations, deer shedding their antlers every year and growing new ones every year, ica ages, sunspots. Want me to go on?

Please explain to me why I should take the word of two scientists over the word of thousands of scientists.

You are by your own admission. You prefer to defer instead of check validity. I choose to learn. You know nothing about the amount of material I've read on the issue. If you think the only thing I've read about this is what's on the internet you'd be wrong. You don't need to be a scientist to understand a lot of this. Your explanation is exactley why there are sheep like you in the world who take whatever opinion is popular at the time because you simply refuse to find out for yourself copping with this 'i'm just not smart enough to understand this, so i'll just beleive whatever mr. x says' This is simply another excuse on your part to avoid learning about a belief that doesn't fit your view. And truly asanine attempt to discredit me.

Read the book 1L by Scott Turow and then come back and tell me I'm lazy. Or talk to any IL in any US law school. You don't need to be a scientists to understand current theories (sort of)...but it is certainly much harder to be able to tell which theories are correct and which ones aren't. It requires a huge amount of background knowledge. And intelligence is much different than knowledge. Most of these people who are climate scientists have devoted at the very least 5-6 years of direct schooling and then been trained their entire lives. But yet you think you are hot shit because you did what...tell me what research you've done.

That isotopes can tell us temperature in years past has been corraborated several times over and rather standard practice in the scientific commmunity. Again you don't have to take my word for it. Look it up yourself it will take you all of 5 minutes to find out. I'll even help you out a little. Below is a link to discussion conducted by the Hudson Institute of recently published work that summarizes much of the research on the alternative view.

Thats nice. Scientific corroboration means that the same conclusions come from several different places. Not that the methods used actually work. There are anomalies all over this world, things which don't fit. So if your evidence only comes from one place, it will probably be disregarded.

Which you haven't done at all. You choose to defer to the people that fit your beliefs and stick your head in the sand, discredit the messenger, or whatever lame ass excuse you can think of at the time to not have to expose yourself to information that doesn't fit your beleifs.

No, actually I don't care to learn vast amounts of information to discredit moronic scientific beliefs which nobody supports, except those who have some personal vested interest in discrediting current global warming theories.

Its like holocaust deniers. Its much easier to spout all of this bullshit and hope that nobody has the knowledge to tear down your claims. Go to a scientific board where there are scientists there and try to make these claims...I'll bet you anything you get your ass handed to you quite quickly.
 
Someone posted a link a while back that showed that a slim majority of scientific articles published supported global warming. And regardless, even if its NOT a majority, it is the ONLY theory which has a large part of the scientific community behind it.

I'm not sure how many times this can be said. That is completely, 100% false. The scientists that are experts in the field: climatologists, paleoclimatolgists, climate physicists in fact do not as a majority support the notion that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend.


*sigh* two laymen arguing about climate change is retarded. You need to realize how little you know.

I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. I know how to objectively read evidence. I know how to find out if the evidence I just read is accurate or not. Do you know how to not cop out at every turn?


I think it is either:

1) Inaccurate
2) Irrelevant
3) A small impact.

Based on what exactley? What you think a bunch of other scientists are saying, when even that isn't true? Face it you don't have a shred of hard evidence that justifies that response.

Please explain to me why I should take the word of two scientists over the word of thousands of scientists.

This will be the third time I have said this. Listening? These aren't the only two scientists that hold this belief. Had you read either of the links I provided you would have found that thousands of scientists were highly critical of the IPCC report.

Read the book 1L by Scott Turow and then come back and tell me I'm lazy. Or talk to any IL in any US law school. You don't need to be a scientists to understand current theories (sort of)...but it is certainly much harder to be able to tell which theories are correct and which ones aren't. It requires a huge amount of background knowledge. And intelligence is much different than knowledge. Most of these people who are climate scientists have devoted at the very least 5-6 years of direct schooling and then been trained their entire lives. But yet you think you are hot shit because you did what...tell me what research you've done.

I see, despite the work done by others I have to do the research myself in order to claim that something is true? Makes sense. I don't think I'm 'hot shit' . I do think I am capable of grasping some basic concepts of chemistry and physics. I know you want to use the old 'it's far too complex excuse'. Just because it's too tough for you to understand or even attempt to learn doesn't mean that holds true for others.

Thats nice. Scientific corroboration means that the same conclusions come from several different places. Not that the methods used actually work. There are anomalies all over this world, things which don't fit. So if your evidence only comes from one place, it will probably be disregarded.

I see. On one hand you claim that this is far too complex to grasp and only scientists who have invested significant time on the subject can understand it and qualified to say anything about it. Yet on the other when a commonly used practice by the scientific community (using isoptopes to determine historical temperature) is brought up all those scientists are using inaccurate methods.



No, actually I don't care to learn vast amounts of information to discredit moronic scientific beliefs which nobody supports, except those who have some personal vested interest in discrediting current global warming theories.

Then I suggest you explain to the literally thousand of climatologists, paleoclimatologists, and climate physicists why they are morons. And while you're at it explain to them why the people at the forefront proclaiming man made global warming is the predominant like Gore and DiCaprio (not scientists by the way) are such geniuses.

Its like holocaust deniers. Its much easier to spout all of this bullshit and hope that nobody has the knowledge to tear down your claims. Go to a scientific board where there are scientists there and try to make these claims...I'll bet you anything you get your ass handed to you quite quickly.

You have provided no evidence that any of the material I have layed it is 'bullshit'. You use excuses at every turn. I asked you to look things up for yourself. You won't and feign fear that it will be too complex for you to undertand. I have asked you to find out from other scientists by reading their work. You won't do that either. At the end of a dozen or so odd posts you have made just one claim (without any support) about the 'consensus' of the scientific community. Meanwhile I supplied a healthy dose of information as to what I have learned about climate change along with what literally thousands of scientists are saying about it. You have been able to refute none of it. Further despite providing absolutely nothing that refutes it you still claim it must be incorrect. You have been reduced to makeing a never ending stream of excuses because you are so arrogant and condescending about everything that at this point you really can't afford to be wrong can you.
 
I'm not sure how many times this can be said. That is completely, 100% false. The scientists that are experts in the field: climatologists, paleoclimatolgists, climate physicists in fact do not as a majority support the notion that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend.

Provide evidence for this assertion/

I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. I know how to objectively read evidence. I know how to find out if the evidence I just read is accurate or not. Do you know how to not cop out at every turn?

Obviously you don't know what you don't know. And no, you also don't know how to objectively read evidence. And please tell me how you find out if the evidence you just read is accurate or not.


Based on what exactley? What you think a bunch of other scientists are saying, when even that isn't true? Face it you don't have a shred of hard evidence that justifies that response.

So you think that its NOT true that a bunch of other scientists say that global warming is primarily man made?

This will be the third time I have said this. Listening? These aren't the only two scientists that hold this belief. Had you read either of the links I provided you would have found that thousands of scientists were highly critical of the IPCC report.

You have provided no support that those are not the only two scientists who hold that belief. That has nothing to do with the IPCC report.

I see, despite the work done by others I have to do the research myself in order to claim that something is true? Makes sense. I don't think I'm 'hot shit' .

That wasn't the claim at all.

I do think I am capable of grasping some basic concepts of chemistry and physics. I know you want to use the old 'it's far too complex excuse'.

Considering that you are claiming there is no agreement by people who do this their entire lives, why do you think this involves "basic concepts of chemistry and physics"?

Just because it's too tough for you to understand or even attempt to learn doesn't mean that holds true for others.

Must I repeat myself, again? Intelligence is not the same as knowledge.

I see. On one hand you claim that this is far too complex to grasp and only scientists who have invested significant time on the subject can understand it and qualified to say anything about it. Yet on the other when a commonly used practice by the scientific community (using isoptopes to determine historical temperature) is brought up all those scientists are using inaccurate methods.

Learn how to read. I said its a possibility that its inaccurate, not that its inaccurate.

Then I suggest you explain to the literally thousand of climatologists, paleoclimatologists, and climate physicists why they are morons. And while you're at it explain to them why the people at the forefront proclaiming man made global warming is the predominant like Gore and DiCaprio (not scientists by the way) are such geniuses.

Really? Literally thousands? Please provide me with links to these groups. By the way...one of the authors from "The Hudson institute article" 3 years ago claimed that the world is not warming up . Please make that consistent with his present claims that the world is warming up because of a natural cycle .

You have provided no evidence that any of the material I have layed it is 'bullshit'. You use excuses at every turn. I asked you to look things up for yourself. You won't and feign fear that it will be too complex for you to undertand.

Are you really this stupid? I asked you what research you've done on this topic. Are you going to anwser my questions or just propound with this bullshit some more?

I have asked you to find out from other scientists by reading their work. You won't do that either. At the end of a dozen or so odd posts you have made just one claim (without any support) about the 'consensus' of the scientific community.

I provided a long list of national and international organizations which support the IPCC conclusions. You have provided...now 4 individuals who support your pov, but have claimed "thousands". I'd like links to these thousands of individuals who support this 1500 cycle theory.

Meanwhile I supplied a healthy dose of information as to what I have learned about climate change along with what literally thousands of scientists are saying about it. You have been able to refute none of it. Further despite providing absolutely nothing that refutes it you still claim it must be incorrect. You have been reduced to makeing a never ending stream of excuses because you are so arrogant and condescending about everything that at this point you really can't afford to be wrong can you.

A healthy dose of information...your ignorance is appalling. The IPCC report is around 300 pages...but yet you think you can adequately prove a point with a few pages stolen from some "scientists" who do NOT have scientific consensus behind them?

By the way...here is some evidence that the consensus is behind me. I am still waiting for evidence that "thousands of scientists" support your views.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
 
For starters as to support for my claims and the thousands of scientists that corrborate the 1500 year cycle, you can start by reading "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer. It contains a complete bibliography of studies used to support the 1500 cycle.

As for your consensus, here are a couple links. One even mentions by name the author of the article you provided.

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2007/08/global_warming_consensus.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

At this point it is has been fairly well established as well that the IPCC report was rather incomplete, which is about the nicest way of saying it. Your author (who is a Historian, not a climate scientist) of course sites said IPCC report for her claim that their is consensus.

How do you find out if the studies of others are accurate? You read what other scientists say about those studies. many other scientists have corraborated the cycle Dansgaard found in the Greenland icecores by drilling sediment cores in other parts of the world.
 
For starters as to support for my claims and the thousands of scientists that corrborate the 1500 year cycle, you can start by reading "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer. It contains a complete bibliography of studies used to support the 1500 cycle.

I'd like scientists who are on record supporting it, not whose research he used. So I'm still waiting for the list of "thousands of scientists".

As for your consensus, here are a couple links. One even mentions by name the author of the article you provided.

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2007/08/global_warming_consensus.html

The study was re-done and now only 45% support it as opposed to 6% opposed. Guess who wins? Not you, son.

At this point it is has been fairly well established as well that the IPCC report was rather incomplete, which is about the nicest way of saying it. Your author (who is a Historian, not a climate scientist) of course sites said IPCC report for her claim that their is consensus.

Fairly well established? You keep saying this while providing no evidence. What do you have to say to the numerous renowned scientific organizations around the world which have put their names out there supporting the conclusions the IPCC came by?

How do you find out if the studies of others are accurate? You read what other scientists say about those studies. many other scientists have corraborated the cycle Dansgaard found in the Greenland icecores by drilling sediment cores in other parts of the world.

Lmao...according to Singer they have. Funny how these theories aren't advanced by more people. I wonder why that could be?
 
I'd like scientists who are on record supporting it, not whose research he used. So I'm still waiting for the list of "thousands of scientists".

More excuses of course. Read the book. You will find plenty of scientists support the 1500 year cycle.

The study was re-done and now only 45% support it as opposed to 6% opposed. Guess who wins? Not you, son.

Actually I do win and you lose on this one. You claimed a majority (which 45% is less than) of scientists beleived man was the predominant cause of global warming. I on the other hand never claimed a majority of scientists beleive the man made cycle is the predominant cause. I stated: "The scientists that are experts in the field: climatologists, paleoclimatolgists, climate physicists in fact do not as a majority support the notion that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend."

Fairly well established? You keep saying this while providing no evidence. What do you have to say to the numerous renowned scientific organizations around the world which have put their names out there supporting the conclusions the IPCC came by?

I have provided links as well as reccomended a book you can read about it. You refuse to of course. I mean is it really that difficult for you to pick up a book and read it or even just click on a link or two? As to the scientists, they believe what they believe because of the IPCC report. Many of whom supported it prior to being made aware of the flaws in it.

Lmao...according to Singer they have. Funny how these theories aren't advanced by more people. I wonder why that could be?

The only person you should be laughing at is yourself. Why are so afraid to pick up a book and see how many members of the scientific community there are that support the natural cycle theory? Everythign you have asked me to provide is practically at your fiongertips. Yet you keep makeing excuses to avoid actually reading any of it. You're like a little kid with his fingers in his ears going 'la, la, la I can't hear you' because he'll be damned if he'll let an alternative view enter his consciousness.

You claim I'm not qualified to present any material assuming that it somehow beyond my comprehension to validate. Yet you are the one who shouldn't even be involved in the discussion because truthfully you have adopted as a belief one argument and argument only. On top of that you refuse to even entertain an alternative. The only one lacking credibility in this 'open minded' debate is you. When you have read the material and can tell me from a scientific standpoint (not from your "i'll just discredit the sources standpoint) I wuould be more than happy to continue the debate. Until then it is pointless to continue with someone who says I'm wrong but claims to know little about the topic himself.
 
More excuses of course. Read the book. You will find plenty of scientists support the 1500 year cycle.

I won't find thousands. I'll tell you that right now. That was a lie, and you know it, so you are squirming.

Actually I do win and you lose on this one. You claimed a majority (which 45% is less than) of scientists beleived man was the predominant cause of global warming. I on the other hand never claimed a majority of scientists beleive the man made cycle is the predominant cause. I stated: "The scientists that are experts in the field: climatologists, paleoclimatolgists, climate physicists in fact do not as a majority support the notion that man is the predominant cause of the current warming trend."

And then I claimed "even if its not a majority" etc, etc. So, no, you don't win. The consensus is with me, not with you. Only a tiny fraction of scientists agree with you.

I have provided links as well as reccomended a book you can read about it. You refuse to of course. I mean is it really that difficult for you to pick up a book and read it or even just click on a link or two?

I read the links and described why they are bullshit.

As to the scientists, they believe what they believe because of the IPCC report. Many of whom supported it prior to being made aware of the flaws in it.

And they know much much better than you do.

The only person you should be laughing at is yourself. Why are so afraid to pick up a book and see how many members of the scientific community there are that support the natural cycle theory?

There AREN'T. No matter what your buddy Freddy claims. Try and do some alternate research on it besides just trusting a few individuals.

Everythign you have asked me to provide is practically at your fiongertips. Yet you keep makeing excuses to avoid actually reading any of it. You're like a little kid with his fingers in his ears going 'la, la, la I can't hear you' because he'll be damned if he'll let an alternative view enter his consciousness.

Sorry that I barely have time as it is, much less time to read every crackpot out there. Nobody believes that junk except gullible idiots like yourself.
 
I have one very simple question: Why will you not read the book? You have made claims about it that you don't even no to be true as you haven't read it.
 
I have one very simple question: Why will you not read the book? You have made claims about that you don't even no to be true or not as you haven't read it.

Why should I read a book which makes claims that the scientific community beleives to be false? I am a layman, I will be unable to distinguish whether the author is correct or not.
 
Why should I read a book which makes claims that the scientific community beleives to be false? I am a layman, I will be unable to distinguish whether the author is correct or not.

Because that statement isn't true. Few if any in the scientific community have claimed that the 1500 cycle is false.

If you can't determine whether their work is true or not how is it you can determine the proponents of the man made theory are right? Especially when less than half of the scientific community supports that view?

You claim I'm not qualified to present any material assuming that it is somehow beyond my comprehension to validate. Yet you are the one who shouldn't even be involved in the discussion because truthfully you have adopted as a belief one argument and oneargument only. On top of that you refuse to even entertain an alternative. The only one lacking credibility in this 'open minded' debate is you. When you have read the material and can tell me from a scientific standpoint (not from your "i'll just discredit the sources standpoint") I wuould be more than happy to continue the debate. Until then it is pointless to continue with someone who says I'm wrong but claims to know little about the topic himself.
 
Because that statement isn't true. Few if any in the scientific community have claimed that the 1500 cycle is false.

Few if any in the scientific community have bothered with such obscure arguments. Nobody argues that its false, but more importantly nobody argues that its true either .

If you can't determine whether their work is true or not how is it you can determine the proponents of the man made theory are right? Especially when less than half of the scientific community supports that view?

Its amusing that are taking great care to attempt to frame the debate to make the numbers seem more on your side than they are. I will state a few facts for you.

1) Thousands of scientists around the world support the theory of man-made global warming. This is NOT true of your theory.

2) A major international study of global warming found that it more likely is man made than not. Huge numbers of scientists and scientific organizations signed off on the results.

3) Of the peer reviewed studies which have come out about global warming, NINE times as many support it as do attack it.

You claim I'm not qualified to present any material assuming that it somehow beyond my comprehension to validate. Yet you are the one who shouldn't even be involved in the discussion because truthfully you have adopted as a belief one argument and argument only.

It IS beyond your comprehension to validate. And no, feel free to be involved in the discussion, but to pretend you know more than the scientists who actually study this stuff is idiocy.

On top of that you refuse to even entertain an alternative. The only one lacking credibility in this 'open minded' debate is you. When you have read the material and can tell me from a scientific standpoint (not from your "i'll just discredit the sources standpoint) I wuould be more than happy to continue the debate. Until then it is pointless to continue with someone who says I'm wrong but claims to know little about the topic himself.

You asked your one question, now I'll ask mine.

Please provide a link to the thousands of scientists who support the 1500 global cycle. That someone used X persons research to support said theory does NOT mean that person X supports the theory. So please...I'm awaiting names and organizations.
 
Because that statement isn't true. Few if any in the scientific community have claimed that the 1500 cycle is false.

By the way...I highly doubt that the only claim in the book is that the 1500 cycle is true.
 
By the way...I highly doubt that the only claim in the book is that the 1500 cycle is true.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that but then again you're not gonna read it to find out for yourself are you? You have established that you aren't interested in the evidence and validity of the theory. You have established that you won't even bother to look at it at all. Since you are that close minded and obstinate there is little reason to continue to debate with you. It is rather difficult to debate the validity of opposing views when one side won't even entertain the oppossing view. If/when you can come back able to debate the validity of evidence rather than asanine attacking with baseless arguments then we can continue.
 
Larkinn said:
I won't find thousands. I'll tell you that right now. That was a lie, and you know it, so you are squirming.

And then I claimed "even if its not a majority" etc, etc. So, no, you don't win. The consensus is with me, not with you. Only a tiny fraction of scientists agree with you.

He didn't lie. I'd say that 15,000 trumps the "consensus" of 2,500. I'm sure the numbers have not changed all that much since 1998 in the scientific world. They may not all agree specifically with the 1500 cycle (don't see them disagreeing either) but they sure as hell don't agree with your favored position.

SEPP News Release: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, APRIL 21, 1998---More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition (see text below) urges the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with the Senate Resolution, approved by a 95-to-0 vote last July, which turns down any international agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India, and Brazil.

In signing the Petition within a period of less than six weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists -- an unprecedented number for this kind of document -- also expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states it well:

"The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."

http://sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html
 
I'm not really sure what you mean by that but then again you're not gonna read it to find out for yourself are you? You have established that you aren't interested in the evidence and validity of the theory. You have established that you won't even bother to look at it at all. Since you are that close minded and obstinate there is little reason to continue to debate with you. It is rather difficult to debate the validity of opposing views when one side won't even entertain the oppossing view. If/when you can come back able to debate the validity of evidence rather than asanine attacking with baseless arguments then we can continue.

Nice dodge. I'm never going to get my link to the "thousands of scientists" who support the 1500 cycle am I? Not really a surprise...you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about.
 
He didn't lie. I'd say that 15,000 trumps the "consensus" of 2,500. I'm sure the numbers have not changed all that much since 1998 in the scientific world. They may not all agree specifically with the 1500 cycle (don't see them disagreeing either) but they sure as hell don't agree with your favored position.

Lmao...your sure the numbers haven't changed since 1998? What would make you "sure" of such an absurd proposition?
 

Forum List

Back
Top