On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:52:16 GMT, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

I guess

Well, you say that, but NASA, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences, IPCC,
and almost all papers published in scientific journals say the opposite.
That makes you unbelievable.

I guess Galileo and Copernicus were unbelievable too?

Has science suddenly become a democracy where theories are supported
by counting the number of papers published about them?

Peter De Baets wrote:
Well, you say that, but NASA, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of
Sciences, IPCC, and almost all papers published in scientific
journals say the opposite. That makes you unbelievable.

I guess Galileo and Copernicus were unbelievable too?

If you base your 'science' on religion, yes. I guess they were. However, the
dark ages are over. We are in the age of modern science where primary
emphasis is given to scientific study, not religious tracts.


Has science suddenly become a democracy where theories are supported
by counting the number of papers published about them?

At some point it become a question of, if 99% of those people with the
skills and knowledge to understand the issue, consider it settled, it IS
settled. This is not a question of politics, propaganda, or polling. It is
merely a recognitions that the debate is over. The stage is being dismantled
and the lights packed away for the next great scientific question. It's all
over but the crying for those who still cling to the contrarian positions
that gradually was overwhelmingly rejected by the accumulation of the
evidence.

(Peter De Baets) wrote in
om:

Well, you say that, but NASA, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of
Sciences, IPCC, and almost all papers published in scientific
journals say the opposite. That makes you unbelievable.

I guess Galileo and Copernicus were unbelievable too?

The excuse for every crackpot believing himself to be a misunderstood
genius. Unfortunately, for every Galileo there has been thousands of people
just as convinced but utterly wrong.

Has science suddenly become a democracy where theories are supported
by counting the number of papers published about them?

Unless you have enough knowledge about a subject to establish the truth
yourself the odds are with following the experts. Occasionally they are
wrong, but usually they really are experts and know more than the rest of
us.

In article ,
Shel Scott WellDone wrote:
Samoans needs to buy a clue about how mankind can NOT
control global warming even if we stopped ALL fossil fuel use
TODAY! They've likely been misled by the usual lefty harpies.

So who's been misleading you?


"Bob Harrington" wrote:
Psalm 110 wrote:
Shel Scott WellDone wrote:
Shel Scot is an IDENTICAL TWIN to MOONIE Fred Singer. Can't tell the
diference between them.

While Psalmie makes Dick Eastman look downright sane...

Note that Demmys are, almost invariably, first at making personal
attacks.

In article ,
(Peter De Baets) wrote:
Well, you say that, but NASA, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of Sciences,
IPCC,
and almost all papers published in scientific journals say the opposite.
That makes you unbelievable.

I guess Galileo and Copernicus were unbelievable too?

Has science suddenly become a democracy where theories are supported
by counting the number of papers published about them?

Since science displaced dogma. That's what Galileo was up againt. Now it's
established science that you're trying to displace with dogma.

Psalm 110 wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/...es_1168962.htm

Samoa calls for action on global warming

The Samoan Government has called on the international community to
stop arguing about global warming and take action to halt it.

If we stop producing flu vaccines and stop
killing infected birds, then we can say
"we get our longevity the old-fashioned way--
we earrrrrrnnnnnnn it!"

--

Thomas Palm wrote in message .229...
(Peter De Baets) wrote in
om:

Well, you say that, but NASA, NOAA, EPA, National Academy of
Sciences, IPCC, and almost all papers published in scientific
journals say the opposite. That makes you unbelievable.

I guess Galileo and Copernicus were unbelievable too?

The excuse for every crackpot believing himself to be a misunderstood
genius. Unfortunately, for every Galileo there has been thousands of people
just as convinced but utterly wrong.

Has science suddenly become a democracy where theories are supported
by counting the number of papers published about them?

Unless you have enough knowledge about a subject to establish the truth
yourself the odds are with following the experts. Occasionally they are
wrong, but usually they really are experts and know more than the rest of
us.

I thought believability had to do with a logical line of reasoning
that can be tested and shown to be reliable over and over again, not
simply depending on a "voice of authority".

On 19 Aug 2004 17:53:24 -0700, (Peter De
Baets) wrote:

I thought believability had to do with a logical line of reasoning
that can be tested and shown to be reliable over and over again, not
simply depending on a "voice of authority".

Correct. That's why global warming through CO2 accumulations is
settled science.

On 19 Aug 2004 12:35:47 -0700, (David Polewka)
wrote:

If we stop