| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2007 02:24:59 PM |
| Object: |
Global Warming at Odds With Science |
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml
Some qoutes to get the true believers on both sides warmed up:
"Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding
this contentious issue and they're right - two German scientist have
settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no
such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate."
"Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical
University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor,
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and
found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming."
"One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible
followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the
computer simulations lie outside any science."
Let the games begin...
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming at Odds With Science |
07 Aug 2007 06:30:03 PM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 11:24 am, wrote:
[...]
I have my own ways of dealing with it.
I ignore everything from :
a) Government officials who are appointed
b) Scientists that are not climate scientists
c) The media
d) Climate scientists who are obviously being funded by folks who have
a vested interest in global warming going away
e) Republicans.
and f) Politicians. Note I count e and f separately.
I am not a climate scientist. I really don't care about global
warming. It has become too politicized and emotional, with the actual
science taking a sideline far too often to what people really, really
want to believe. The only thing that really pisses me off is that the
debate is taking place at all.
Among actual climate scientists, from what I have read, there is a
consensus that the effect is real. The cause is a little more ill-
defined due to already-existent periodicity tossed in with whatever
the hell the Sun is doing this week plus the constant meddling by
people. However, I'm not a climate scientist so I let them do their
own thing. I trust the conclusions reached by the group because I
trust scientists as a whole.
The equivalent would be having some retired engineers who never
studied physics to come tell me what is and is not valid physics....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming at Odds With Science |
07 Aug 2007 07:04:58 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:24 am, wrote:
[...]
I have my own ways of dealing with it.
I ignore everything from :
a) Government officials who are appointed
b) Scientists that are not climate scientists
c) The media
d) Climate scientists who are obviously being funded by folks who have
a vested interest in global warming going away
e) Republicans.
and f) Politicians. Note I count e and f separately.
I would add
I. Government officials who are elected.
II. Climate scientists who are obviously being funded by folks who have
a vested interest in global warming
I am not a climate scientist. I really don't care about global
warming. It has become too politicized and emotional, with the actual
science taking a sideline far too often to what people really, really
want to believe. The only thing that really pisses me off is that the
debate is taking place at all.
In general, I forsee nothing from global warming itself that would
have any noticable affect on me in my lifetime.
I do forsee a potential noticable affect on me from those that want
to "do something before it is too late".
As long as the second exists, let the debate rage.
Among actual climate scientists, from what I have read, there is a
consensus that the effect is real. The cause is a little more ill-
defined due to already-existent periodicity tossed in with whatever
the hell the Sun is doing this week plus the constant meddling by
people. However, I'm not a climate scientist so I let them do their
own thing. I trust the conclusions reached by the group because I
trust scientists as a whole.
The equivalent would be having some retired engineers who never
studied physics to come tell me what is and is not valid physics....
You seem to have a problem with retired engineers.
Are you letting certain kook-oids get to you?
Real engineers, you know the ones with a real degree and not just
a job title, have to take real physics courses and aren't likely
to spout nonsense unless dementia is setting in.
I do know a few of those.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Global Warming at Odds With Science |
07 Aug 2007 08:24:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:24:59 GMT,
wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml
Some qoutes to get the true believers on both sides warmed up:
"Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding
this contentious issue and they're right - two German scientist have
settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no
such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate."
"Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical
University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor,
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and
found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming."
"One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible
followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the
computer simulations lie outside any science."
Let the games begin...
When did this current interglacial global warming trend start?
Most sources I've reviewed say that the bottom of the last ice
age occurred about 20,000 years ago and things laid quasi-static
for about 8,000 years. Then, about 12,000 years ago this old
planet started warming up, slowly, and steadily by jerks, like a
toad hopping. This present interglacial warming pattern seems to
be very much the same as other such warming patterns that ice
core data indicate. How can anyone argue that this is the result
of human related pollution?
Now, if we want to really get into this, perhaps we should argue
that human pollution prolonged this present interglacial warm
period, and kept us from falling back into the next ice age, that
would otherwise have started about 150 years ago.
Gordon
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
