sorry. it should be "it doesn't.."
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
A bottom line here is that none of us, including myself, who might be the only scientist here, is in a position to be believable as critic of scientists working in the area of "global warming". They are the experts; we are not. And although any one, or several of them, can be wrong, their colleagues will eventually have the next to last say. In Science, Mother Nature always has the last say.
Oh but I thought that consensus means nothing? Make up your mind.
sorry. it should be "it doesn't.."
Note how polite he is^. This is in the think tank playbook. Be nice guy. Win friends and respect. And then lie.
Shaviv has looked at the cause. This is the most important question. Shaviv will get the Nobel Prize a generation from now, ~ 20 yrs. But we should not forget the contributions of Murry Salby, who showed that it can not be CO2, and Ferenc Miskolczi, who showed that the feedback must be negative; not positive.
In the best of all worlds, all three would share the prize .Hats off to modern physics and its contributions to mankind.
And hats off to all of science.
In the best of all worlds, all three would share the prize .Hats off to modern physics and its contributions to mankind.
And hats off to all of science.
Last edited:
I knew you were a sick troll but I held out hope you were not sick in real life.
now I am not so sure.
now I am not so sure.
Do you fake your orgasms also? LOL
Shaviv has looked at the cause. This is the most important question. Shaviv will get the Nobel Prize a generation from now, ~ 20 yrs. But we should not forget the contributions of Murry Salby, who showed that it can not be CO2, and Ferenc Miskolczi, who showed that the feedback must be negative; not positive.
In the best of all worlds, all three would share the prize .Hats off to modern physics and its contributions to mankind.
And hats off to all of science.
Yeah sure. Amazing how you lie with such fake honesty.
What is your scientific discipline?A bottom line here is that none of us, including myself, who might be the only scientist here, is in a position to be believable as critic of scientists working in the area of "global warming". They are the experts; we are not. And although any one, or several of them, can be wrong, their colleagues will eventually have the next to last say. In Science, Mother Nature always has the last say.
Shaviv has looked at the cause. This is the most important question. Shaviv will get the Nobel Prize a generation from now, ~ 20 yrs. But we should not forget the contributions of Murry Salby, who showed that it can not be CO2, and Ferenc Miskolczi, who showed that the feedback must be negative; not positive.
In the best of all worlds, all three would share the prize .Hats off to modern physics and its contributions to mankind.
And hats off to all of science.
I don't get you piezoe, you lean left on 90% of the issues yet you are anti climate change? Even if you don't believe in climate change itself aren't there some positive environmental side effects to the treatment of climate change that you could believe in? Cleaner air, water ect..ect?
I'm sure there are people on the left who might not believe in the science of climate change but "climate change" is now the primary environmental focus of the left. These people care about the environment but might not believe in the science of climate change. However, the solutions to combat climate change align with their original "old school" environmental beliefs like saving the rain forests, wet lands, clean air and drinking water ect...
What I am saying is maybe you don't believe in the disease (climate change) but the "cure" to climate change might align with any of your original environmental beliefs before climate change became the primary environmental focus on the left.
Let me give you one last off-the-wall analogy. Let's say that you are a doctor and a patient with high blood pressure and lungs that are in poor condition comes to you and says "If I quit smoking then the ghosts will stop haunting my house". Rather than argue if ghosts exist or not wouldn't the benefits of the patient no longer smoking be a better outcome than proving that ghosts don't exist?
Suppose the oceans needed billions and the air needed billions and the fields needed billions and the acquifers needed billions because they were stressed out by having to feed all the people on the planet.
Now supposed more co2 would green the planet and create more food.
Would you spend billions and billions on fake science about co2 or would you use the money to conserve and protect the environment directly.
I am an environmentalist. I have been an advocate for clean oceans and bays.
And I can tell you after talking to some scientists and then doing a ton of research myself... I learned that this man made co2 is causing warming... is complete horseshit with no peer reviewed science supporting the co2 nutters.
All this money should be spent fixing the fisheries an cleaning the oceans and protect acquifers... not lining the pockets of scammers so govts can create carbon exchanges and limit our freedoms.
Now supposed more co2 would green the planet and create more food.
Would you spend billions and billions on fake science about co2 or would you use the money to conserve and protect the environment directly.
I am an environmentalist. I have been an advocate for clean oceans and bays.
And I can tell you after talking to some scientists and then doing a ton of research myself... I learned that this man made co2 is causing warming... is complete horseshit with no peer reviewed science supporting the co2 nutters.
All this money should be spent fixing the fisheries an cleaning the oceans and protect acquifers... not lining the pockets of scammers so govts can create carbon exchanges and limit our freedoms.
I don't get you piezoe, you lean left on 90% of the issues yet you are anti climate change? Even if you don't believe in climate change itself aren't there some positive environmental side effects to the treatment of climate change that you could believe in? Cleaner air, water ect..ect?
I'm sure there are people on the left who might not believe in the science of climate change but "climate change" is now the primary environmental focus of the left. These people care about the environment but might not believe in the science of climate change. However, the solutions to combat climate change align with their original "old school" environmental beliefs like saving the rain forests, wet lands, clean air and drinking water ect...
What I am saying is maybe you don't believe in the disease (climate change) but the "cure" to climate change might align with any of your original environmental beliefs before climate change became the primary environmental focus on the left.
Let me give you one last off-the-wall analogy. Let's say that you are a doctor and a patient with high blood pressure and lungs that are in poor condition comes to you and says "If I quit smoking then the ghosts will stop haunting my house". Rather than argue if ghosts exist or not wouldn't the benefits of the patient no longer smoking be a better outcome than proving that ghosts don't exist?