HUNDREDS of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fea

Thorn said:
I wondered why, if the evidence is so overwhelming, that of those 500 scientists or articles or whatever that number was supposed to represent, not a single citation was offered.
Click to expand...
Maybe the article was too short to do so, or they didn't want to favor any citation or they didn't want to give away key bits because they want you to buy the book, do you honestly think they are lying about the citations NOT being in the book?
Most books are sold by peer recommendation, obviously that is extremely unlikely.

But I am just hypothesizing, why not contact the author and ask, contact details were mentioned:
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net

Thorn said:
Also why do all credible climatological scientists openly conclude just the opposite?
Click to expand...
All these people are not credible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I would say based on which story sells better and the natural tendency of the media to play to that, you really haven't heard as much from the more moderate and quieter scientists who don't make bold newsworthy claims and some of whom are sceptics.
 
Thorn said:
Exactly. I noted that and then didn't have the time to follow it up further -- also it was so ludicrous it didn't seem worth the effort, frankly.
Click to expand...
Isn't this a bit like me saying no one should believe anything Al Gore says because he is just trying to sell movies?

Is it really so impossible that people can have beliefs AND want to make a living out of expanding them?
 
Onceler said:
You've gotta google Dennis Avery & the Hudson Institute. This organization STARTED w/ the premise that we can win a thermonuclear war, and was primarily responsible for spreading the disinformation that pesticide-treated veggies are healthier than organic (a little favor for their primary source of funding).
Click to expand...

You could certainly make an argument for that. Because organic food uses no pesticides, more of the crop is lost to insects, the result of course is that you need to harvest a greater amount of land (ie: run over it with a gas fueled tractor) in order to yield the same amount of produce.

On the flip side, pesticides used in normal produce, have been determined to be well below any safety risk:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/chemnews/1990/oct-90.html
 
"You could certainly make an argument for that. Because organic food uses no pesticides, more of the crop is lost to insects, the result of course is that you need to harvest a greater amount of land (ie: run over it with a gas fueled tractor) in order to yield the same amount of produce."

Avery was talking about healthier for human consumption.

The guy's a total hack, who cherrypicked what little he could from a variety of reports, to present a dishonest "conclusion."

Like I said - he sounds right up your alley...
 
Also I noticed funding being brought up, it should be noted that the funding for the book involved no corporate contributions.
 
TheDanold said:
Also I noticed funding being brought up, it should be noted that the funding for the book involved no corporate contributions.
Click to expand...

The funding for Hudson Institute is primarily from agri-business, which is why Avery argued that pesticide treated food is better for you than organic.

It just shows that he is more beholden to other factors like money & ideology, as opposed to basing his arguments on facts...
 
Onceler said:
"You could certainly make an argument for that. Because organic food uses no pesticides, more of the crop is lost to insects, the result of course is that you need to harvest a greater amount of land (ie: run over it with a gas fueled tractor) in order to yield the same amount of produce."

Avery was talking about healthier for human consumption.

The guy's a total hack, who cherrypicked what little he could from a variety of reports, to present a dishonest "conclusion."

Like I said - he sounds right up your alley...
Click to expand...
It certainly can be unhealthier for consumption, without pesticides, more creatures land on the produce leaving behind fecal matter which is where bacteria like E Coli thrive:

"The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria on organic produce than conventional. "
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb133293.htm
 
Onceler said:
The funding for Hudson Institute is primarily from agri-business, which is why Avery argued that pesticide treated food is better for you than organic.

It just shows that he is more beholden to other factors like money & ideology, as opposed to basing his arguments on facts...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof of this please. I remember Darla scolding me for saying the Cato Institute is funded mainly by corporations and then I showed the proof that is was actually only 5% funded by corporations.
 
TheDanold said:
It certainly can be unhealthier for consumption, without pesticides, more creatures land on the produce leaving behind fecal matter which is where bacteria like E Coli thrive:

"The latest research from the University of Minnesota renews concerns that organic produce has higher bacterial risks than conventional fruits and vegetables. The Minnesota researchers found significantly more E. coli and more Salmonella bacteria on organic produce than conventional. "
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb133293.htm
Click to expand...
This is probably because the Patchooli wearing hippies that harvest the organic food only bathe once or twice a month and the bacteria comes from the handler and not the insects or food alone. (Now awaiting flames)
 
Onceler said:
Man, you can shift arguments on a dime, as long as they're consistent w/ your ideology.

Just add water...
Click to expand...

I didn't shift anything, you changed topics to organic food and made claims on that which I refuted.

If you'd like to refute my points, go ahead.
 
Socrtease said:
This is probably because the Patchooli wearing hippies that harvest the organic food only bathe once or twice a month and the bacteria comes from the handler and not the insects or food alone. (Now awaiting flames)
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA, well I do remember wanderingbear said he worked growing organic weed and that guy was about as big of a hippie bum as you can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top