IrishEddie says,
I don’t have to be a scientist to understand this very simple principle.
motivemagus says:
IrishEddie - you go, man!
Motive, I’m glad I do not have to pay attention to so-called scientists anymore.
Irish, do you know what the cubic volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is? Do you know that green plants need co2to survive. Do you know that the oceans have algae and other organisms in it that produce more co2 than humans? Co2 is not a pollutant.
Now that we do not have to pay attention to scientists - I think we will all get along a lot better.
For a very highly scientific and somewhat long review of the position of a respected skeptic look at the following. The problem I see with the AGW advocates is one their strongest arguments is the lack of peer reviewed opposition. But the emails revealed that there was a concerted effort to deny any of those who were in opposition that ability to publish.
Libertarian1 - you’re using a blog of lawyers to discuss this?
And for those who think CO2 is just dandy to have around, check this finding out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Libertarian, I do plan to read it in more detail, and check it to see what some of the climate scientists might be saying over in realclimate.org. But you referred to it as “scientific,” and I am not convinced. This level of data-crunching takes some finesse. Maybe if the folks at 538.com tackled it…but I am skeptical.
I have read your posts for many months and they seem very knowledgeable, cautious and reasonable. In this case what you are saying is that all the experts you “trust” are saying the same thing so we should abide by the consensus.
Let’s change the subject to the health care bill. I can show you hundreds of widely acknowledged medical experts who will say the proposed plan is absurd and destined to be a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle. I am as convinced about the health care plan as you are by your AGW concern. In fact we have state after state of experience showing the plan will be a failure. Will you accept my word? But you expect us to accept the word of experts who make millions of dollars if you buy into their proposals.
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
BS scooter with your type of skepticism we’d be sing God save the Queen.
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
@ Snott If we lost the war shouldn’t we be speaking Vietnamese?
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
IrishEddie - you go, man!
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
IrishEddie says, I don’t have to be a scientist to understand this very simple principle.
motivemagus says: IrishEddie - you go, man!
Motive, I’m glad I do not have to pay attention to so-called scientists anymore. Irish, do you know what the cubic volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is? Do you know that green plants need co2to survive. Do you know that the oceans have algae and other organisms in it that produce more co2 than humans? Co2 is not a pollutant. Now that we do not have to pay attention to scientists - I think we will all get along a lot better.
Libertarian1 over 14 years ago
For a very highly scientific and somewhat long review of the position of a respected skeptic look at the following. The problem I see with the AGW advocates is one their strongest arguments is the lack of peer reviewed opposition. But the emails revealed that there was a concerted effort to deny any of those who were in opposition that ability to publish.
http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Libertarian1 - you’re using a blog of lawyers to discuss this? And for those who think CO2 is just dandy to have around, check this finding out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
6 of 11 of, by, 4 scoot
that’s over 50%
Libertarian1 over 14 years ago
Motivemagus
So if you read scientific facts in the NYT you dismiss their importance as the NYT is just a public interest newspaper not a science journal.
I suggest you read the Volokh post in detail and discuss the scientific findings discovered and analyzed elsewhere.
Classic- Don’t bother me with the facts my mind is made up.
Your post is exactly why the public is rapidly dismissing your claims. And the shame is they may indeed be valid.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Libertarian, I do plan to read it in more detail, and check it to see what some of the climate scientists might be saying over in realclimate.org. But you referred to it as “scientific,” and I am not convinced. This level of data-crunching takes some finesse. Maybe if the folks at 538.com tackled it…but I am skeptical.
Libertarian1 over 14 years ago
Motivemagus
Not certain you will see this but…
I have read your posts for many months and they seem very knowledgeable, cautious and reasonable. In this case what you are saying is that all the experts you “trust” are saying the same thing so we should abide by the consensus.
Let’s change the subject to the health care bill. I can show you hundreds of widely acknowledged medical experts who will say the proposed plan is absurd and destined to be a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle. I am as convinced about the health care plan as you are by your AGW concern. In fact we have state after state of experience showing the plan will be a failure. Will you accept my word? But you expect us to accept the word of experts who make millions of dollars if you buy into their proposals.