Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 21, 7:11*pm, Seebs wrote:
On 2010-03-21, Last Post wrote: ø Nobody asks you to read them, but I expect * *you are afraid you might learn something * *that you do not like. No, I'm not. *I'd *LOVE* for the world not to be in reasonably serious danger of massive starvation within my lifetime, but the fact is, the science on this is about as "controversial" as heliocentrism, evolution, and the realization that autism is not caused by the mercury which isn't even IN the vaccines under discussion. ø It really is amazing how so many claiming to be * *scientists post nonsense that denies science. I'm not claiming to be a scientist. *I'm just observing that the positions of scientists on this issue are about as consistent as the positions of scientists on the germ theory of disease. Whether global climate change was a realistic worry was a serious question twenty years ago, maybe even ten. *It's not now. *Now the question is how well we can figure out the mechanics and what if anything we can do about it. All your ranting is irrelevant; unless you can show that you are a genuinely qualified expert in the field, I take your garbled nonsense on the climate precisely as seriously as I take Jenny McCarthy's incoherent rants about the nature of autism. Slow down, stop assuming that the goal of everything is to win at all costs, and look at the data, the studies, and the theories. *I have never, ever, seen someone remotely competent and literate do this and still hold to the "skeptic" position on climate change, any more than I have on evolution. *It's over. *It was a good debate, it's great that people thought seriously about it... and they thought seriously about it, did research, and answered the question. *At this point, the "skeptic" position is just plain insane. Please stop crossposting this garbage. ... Cosmic ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray Nir Shaviv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv Jan Veizer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Veizer Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf 138 cites of Celestial driver http://scholar.google.com/scholar?ci...03&as_yhi=2003 ----- David Christainsen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Preliminary results for the CERN CLOUD cosmic ray experiment | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
More on why the cosmic ray/cloud cover connection is more important than greenhouse gases | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
More on why the cosmic ray/cloud cover connection is more important than greenhouse gases | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COSMIC RAY COFFIN! | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Cosmic ray flux and climate | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |