NASA weight in on the Global Warming denialist campaign

Well, according to previous posts it has been the way it was done for 400 years....

:rolleyes:


You might want to retract those rolling eyeballs. Seriously, you really didn't take any science in college, nor do you have any fundamental interest in science, I guess.

Peer review has been around, for hundreds of years.

A Science Timeline:

1590 — First controlled experiment, (Francis Bacon)
1600 — First dedicated laboratory
1637 — First Scientific method (René Descartes)
1650 — Society of experts (the Royal Society))
1650 — Experimental evidence established as the arbiter of truth (the Royal Society)
1665 — Repeatability established (Robert Boyle)
1665 — Scholarly journals established
1675 — Peer review begun
1687 — Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton)
1710 — The problem of induction identified by David Hume


University of Massachusetts
http://www.umass.edu/richlab/Lectures Given (PowerPoint)/Lect 15.pdf


Let me guess Damo, this will be another one of those times where you can't quite bring yourself to admit you were wrong. :clink:
 
You might want to retract those rolling eyeballs. Seriously, you really didn't take any science in college, nor do you have any fundamental interest in science, I guess.

Peer review has been around, for hundreds of years.




Let me guess Damo, this will be another one of those times where you can't quite bring yourself to admit you were wrong. :clink:
LOL. Nah, I'll admit it as soon as you can prove that 2007 minus 400 equals a number either equal to or greater than 1675. Now when did Galileo do his thing? My rolleyes was a sarcastic answer of "of course not" when he asked if Galileo had been peer reviewed... But instead of taking it for what it was you glommed on to something you thought was "wrong" about it. Basically I was supporting Ib1's suggestion, unless you think sarcasm about the possibility of Galileo being peer reviewed somehow didn't support the point of ib1's post.... Embarrassed much?

Seriously, I really don't give a rat's patoot about this subject, for reasons I have given long ago. However, 400 years ago was 1607, so I wasn't exactly wrong, in fact I was correct in my 'rolleyes'... and even if there was peer review begun in 1607 it still wouldn't have been done with Galileo...

Let's see if you will be disingenuous enough to pretend that your math wasn't a bit off.... (insert Topper's Smilie here)...

Maybe you didn't take math in college, or like to play gotcha sooooo much that you can't use your calculator properly.

:rolleyes:
 
Umm I think more like 90% agree that humans are at least contributing to global warming. Whether all of them agree with every one of gores points is irrelevant except for those desperate to discredit the human involvement in global warming.
 
You are an ignorant dolt.

No yysass, manmade global warming is a lie.

and al gore eludes any situation where rationality could prevail.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873
But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.

Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.

Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:

[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.

Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.

Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.


Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.

But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.

If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery's challenge.

Dennis Avery can be contacted directly via email at cgfi@hughes.net.
 
Hmm why are all the ones that say humans have nothing to do with global warming using Gore as their focal point ?
I do not use Gore as my focal point. Scientists conclusions had convinced me long before gore stepped up to the plate.
I guess it is all political with the AGW bunch ?
 
Hmm why are all the ones that say humans have nothing to do with global warming using Gore as their focal point ?
I do not use Gore as my focal point. Scientists conclusions had convinced me long before gore stepped up to the plate.
I guess it is all political with the AGW bunch ?

Gore has made himself the focus.
 
Gore has made himself the focus.
I applaud Gore for making this a personal issue, takes some guts and dedication.

Yes gore has made himself the focue, but he is a politician not a scientist. So debunking some of Gore's points is just debunking a politician not a scientist.

Too wussy to go after the real experts ?
 
I applaud Gore for making this a personal issue, takes some guts and dedication.

Yes gore has made himself the focue, but he is a politician not a scientist. So debunking some of Gore's points is just debunking a politician not a scientist.

Too wussy to go after the real experts ?

The experts are invited too. Wouldn't gore get some of the experts to help him prepare?

Why do you applaud the spreading of propaganda and fear mongering?
 
The experts are invited too. Wouldn't gore get some of the experts to help him prepare?

Why do you applaud the spreading of propaganda and fear mongering?

Umm I was against the war in Iraq before it started....
those who supported it or reelecred bush out of fear should ask themselves that question.
 
Okay. You convinced me. Global warming is a lie. It's the biggest lie in the history of the scientific community, and it has been perpetrated by tends of thousands of independent researchers, all of the top scientific organizations in the world, every peer reviewed study that has ever been done on the matter, the peers who reviewed those studies, as well most of the major political figures of the industrialized world.

That's far, far more likely than Gore's contention that the science is actually valid. Consider me convinced.
 
Okay. You convinced me. Global warming is a lie. It's the biggest lie in the history of the scientific community, and it has been perpetrated by tends of thousands of independent researchers, all of the top scientific organizations in the world, every peer reviewed study that has ever been done on the matter, the peers who reviewed those studies, as well most of the major political figures of the industrialized world.

That's far, far more likely than Gore's contention that the science is actually valid. Consider me convinced.

:D
Did getting 80% of your brain sucked out hurt much ?
 
Okay. You convinced me. Global warming is a lie. It's the biggest lie in the history of the scientific community, and it has been perpetrated by tends of thousands of independent researchers, all of the top scientific organizations in the world, every peer reviewed study that has ever been done on the matter, the peers who reviewed those studies, as well most of the major political figures of the industrialized world.

That's far, far more likely than Gore's contention that the science is actually valid. Consider me convinced.

All of the top scientists are funded by the military industrial complex, and will say whatever their funders want.

It's not unananimous, and if it's so clear, why are they afraid of actual debate?
 
All of the top scientists are funded by the military industrial complex, and will say whatever their funders want.

It's not unananimous, and if it's so clear, why are they afraid of actual debate?


Umm I don't think most of the climatoligist types are funded by the military industrial complex.

Is most of the cosmetics research funded by the military complex as well AHZ ?
 
Back
Top