1 posted on
04/19/2008 11:56:24 AM PDT by
RogerFGay
To: RogerFGay
2 posted on
04/19/2008 12:01:31 PM PDT by
preacher
(A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
To: RogerFGay
A group of scientists have challenged the IPCC to admit that there is no evidence that human activity drives climate change.The reporter uses very sloppy language here. What he means to say is that the IPCC's position should not be considered proven by the evidence.
There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position. The dispute is specifically with regard to how this this large body of evidence should be interpreted, not whether it exists.
There is a great deal of difference between saying there is no evidence, and saying that a position has not been proven.
3 posted on
04/19/2008 12:02:17 PM PDT by
Sherman Logan
(Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
To: RogerFGay
With the UN’s recents comments concerning the starving masses and misuse of corn this may just be what kills this load of crap.
Boy if this were to happen I wouild love to see someone ask spineless Newt about his newest position on Global warming.
7 posted on
04/19/2008 12:12:15 PM PDT by
stockpirate
(Obama and Hillery will make me vote for McCain, now if we can just move him to the right.)
To: RogerFGay
And all for 9 months a 1 day left, pinhead Bush continues to snore.
Being U.S. president must be the greatest non job in the world. And a huge retirement after that
like those U.S CEOs.
I took the wrong career path.
To: RogerFGay
But...but...but...I thought the science was settled.
12 posted on
04/19/2008 12:14:58 PM PDT by
rmh47
(Go Kats! - Got Seven? [NRA Life Member])
To: RogerFGay
I think Global Warming legislation is doing it’s job:
Global Warmers say it’s man that is destroying the earth. So getting rid of man will put an end to the problem, right? People can’t live without food, so burn it. Earth saved, everyone happy. :-(
To: RogerFGay
I think they are asking people to admit that their jobs aren't needed.
I expect a crazy denial and name calling by the Global Warming Alarmists.
16 posted on
04/19/2008 12:26:32 PM PDT by
BallyBill
(Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
To: RogerFGay
A committee on Climate Change could hardly deny climate change. They could disband without comment or with comment but they could not remain as a funding center.
23 posted on
04/19/2008 12:47:20 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: RogerFGay
To: SirKit
28 posted on
04/19/2008 12:53:59 PM PDT by
SuziQ
To: RogerFGay; WL-law; Genesis defender; proud_yank; FrPR; enough_idiocy; rdl6989; IrishCatholic; ...
To: RogerFGay
Evidence presented in the letter goes well beyond putting the hockey stick graph, made famous in Al Gore's movie, in doubt. The hockey stick presented exponentially increasing global temperature in the near future due to uncontrolled increases in CO2 and got its name from the shape of the graph an apparently long stable period with an upward increase in CO2 and temperature during the industrial age.For a better description of the Hockey Stick, see What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?
McIntyre and McKitrick have more recent stuff added to the debate, but that's still a pretty good place to start reading about it. More recent stuff at Climate Audit
To: RogerFGay
I'm still waiting for media-based science to debunk the greenhouse effect. The concept is a falsehood. Higher CO2 concentration provides no long term atmospheric insulating properties against convection, water vapor and air flow -the processes by which the atmosphere loses heat. It's a total scam.
42 posted on
04/19/2008 1:36:50 PM PDT by
Justa
(Politically Correct is morally wrong.)
To: RogerFGay
51 posted on
04/19/2008 5:27:39 PM PDT by
Delacon
("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
To: RogerFGay; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
55 posted on
04/19/2008 6:55:46 PM PDT by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(To the liberal, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make. --FReeper popdonnelly)
To: RogerFGay
We don't really even know if the temperatures are actually going up or if so by how much. There is so much urban heat island effect distorting the numbers that it is hard to say with say with any accuracy.
Of course temperature measuring equipment like this doesn't help.
How about a hot parking lot as a place to measure temperature?
Lots more
56 posted on
04/19/2008 7:32:43 PM PDT by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: RogerFGay
I have a general question for anyone who has more background than I have on the man-made Global Warming issue.
I'm currently in a debate in another forum with a flaming lib who has challenged me to find any peer reviewed article in a reputable technical journal that disputes the supposedly settled science of Global Warming and in particular the dominance of the human impact on climate change. We are currently focused on the list of scientists that are discussed in Lawrence Soloman's book "The Deniers".
I do know that it has been stated that a recent survey did indeed show that there were ZERO articles published in peer reviewed technical journals that were skeptical of the man-made Global Warming thesis.
So I hoping someone can point me to some relevant sources or verify that there are none.
To: RogerFGay
71 posted on
04/30/2008 5:49:57 PM PDT by
CedarDave
(Obama says he loves America. So why does he associate with those who so obviously hate it?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson