In article ,
"SBC Yahoo" wrote:
"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Most of the warming in the past xxx years is likely - -
I am likely to win the lottery, but it never happens.

Now when they can say IS, they will be right.

Science usually quotes odds. Nobody can say January will be cooler than July;
the probability is very high.


The fact that journals do not
publish conflicting arguments, is not so much that they have been rejected,
although many were half baked, but there are several out there that simply
have not been refuted by any evidence, but too many in the scientific
community have jumped on the al gore movie band wagon to stamp out global
warming.

Perhaps because they've looked at the science and you've looked at the
right-wing propaganda.


Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong.

OK, official idiot alert.

They
will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on this
subject.

Present some.

Is has become Scientifically Incorrect (PC in science) to refute
human activities as the SOLE and primary contributor to global warming.

Like it's incorrect to claim the earth is 6000 years old.

And
what scientist could say with a straight face, that all of the evidence
points to a 1 deg C rise in temperature, when they have millions of pages of
data and theories tying all of this together? The margin of error MUST be
greater that the actual temp rise achieved. (Statistics 101) There is no
doubt that high concentrations of methane, CO2 will cause a greenhouse
effect. There is no doubt that a 1 deg rise in global temperature is going
to prove any theory that is put forth covering the last 50 years of data on
anything. That reminds me of a prominent scientist that "discovered" Cold
Fusion back in the 1980's.

And because they didn't follow the scientific method, it was quickly refuted.


If Big Al says man is solely responsible for GlobalWarming, then it must be
wrong. Al could statistically be right, but then I could win the lottery
also.

You could also ask the wizard for a brain.



"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...3.story?coll=l
a-opinion-rightrail

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Most of the warming in the past xxx years is likely - -
I am likely to win the lottery, but it never happens.

Now when they can say IS, they will be right. The fact that journals do not
publish conflicting arguments, is not so much that they have been rejected,
although many were half baked, but there are several out there that simply
have not been refuted by any evidence, but too many in the scientific
community have jumped on the al gore movie band wagon to stamp out global
warming.

Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong. They
will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on this
subject. Is has become Scientifically Incorrect (PC in science) to refute
human activities as the SOLE and primary contributor to global warming. And
what scientist could say with a straight face, that all of the evidence
points to a 1 deg C rise in temperature, when they have millions of pages of
data and theories tying all of this together? The margin of error MUST be
greater that the actual temp rise achieved. (Statistics 101) There is no
doubt that high concentrations of methane, CO2 will cause a greenhouse
effect. There is no doubt that a 1 deg rise in global temperature is going
to prove any theory that is put forth covering the last 50 years of data on
anything. That reminds me of a prominent scientist that "discovered" Cold
Fusion back in the 1980's.

If Big Al says man is solely responsible for GlobalWarming, then it must be
wrong. Al could statistically be right, but then I could win the lottery
also.


"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

SBC Yahoo wrote:

"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong.

That's very rational.

They will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on this
subject.

And who are these genuine scientific geniuses of yours?

Lindzen? Michaels? No wait ... Michael Crichten?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article , says...

SBC Yahoo wrote:

"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong.

That's very rational.

They will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on
this
subject.

And who are these genuine scientific geniuses of yours?

Lindzen? Michaels? No wait ... Michael Crichten?

Don't forget Rep. Joe Barton. He held another hearing about Michael Mann's
1998/99 reports last Thursday. The written statements of the witnesses and the
archived audio is available he

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...01/hearing.htm

The hearing archive lasts 4h40m, with a break from 1h9m until 2h17m for voting.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Swanson wrote:
In article , says...
SBC Yahoo wrote:

"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong.
That's very rational.

They will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on
this
subject.
And who are these genuine scientific geniuses of yours?

Lindzen? Michaels? No wait ... Michael Crichten?

Don't forget Rep. Joe Barton. He held another hearing about Michael Mann's
1998/99 reports last Thursday. The written statements of the witnesses and the
archived audio is available he

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...01/hearing.htm

The hearing archive lasts 4h40m, with a break from 1h9m until 2h17m for voting.

Another one? What is wrong with America?

Did Mann show up this time?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

A history (shouldn't it be "herstory"?) of science professor? Yet another
"expert" on global warming? Yea right!

The global warming crowd's strategy -"Forget the scientific method, just
solicit a consensus of unqualified 'experts'!"

WDA

end


"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

In article , says...

Eric Swanson wrote:
In article , says...
SBC Yahoo wrote:

"most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
Al Gore is my bellwether, if he is for it, it is definitely wrong.
That's very rational.

They will ignore genuine scientific work that tends to be counter current on
this subject.

And who are these genuine scientific geniuses of yours?

Lindzen? Michaels? No wait ... Michael Crichten?

Don't forget Rep. Joe Barton. He held another hearing about Michael Mann's
1998/99 reports last Thursday. The written statements of the witnesses and the
archived audio is available he

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...01/hearing.htm

The hearing archive lasts 4h40m, with a break from 1h9m until 2h17m for voting.

Another one? What is wrong with America?

Did Mann show up this time?

Michael Mann was there, as was Cicerone (the NAS President) and John Christy.
Stephen McIntyre and Wiegman both returned. During the question period, one
representative asked whether there was agreement that the Earth was warming
and all the panelists agreed. I don't recall the exact wording of the question,
but it was close to the quote at the top of this post.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

W. D. Allen wrote:

A history (shouldn't it be "herstory"?) of science professor? Yet another
"expert" on global warming? Yea right!

The global warming crowd's strategy -"Forget the scientific method, just
solicit a consensus of unqualified 'experts'!"

She's a History of Science expert.

Her data was the science papers.

She was analyzing consensus.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...343.story?coll
=la-opinion-rightrail


http://tinyurl.com/bzjqu