60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 547:
Line 547: + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 23:43, July 2, 2007
, 23:43, July 2, 2007no edit summary
:And if you ''really'' want to help, you can explain all about [[albedo]], [[cosmic ray]]s, [[sunspot]]s, [[solar variation]], and the various natural [[climate cycle]]s. We need to know about these first, before we can judge the extend of the human contribution. Would you care to help in this way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:And if you ''really'' want to help, you can explain all about [[albedo]], [[cosmic ray]]s, [[sunspot]]s, [[solar variation]], and the various natural [[climate cycle]]s. We need to know about these first, before we can judge the extend of the human contribution. Would you care to help in this way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
How does the fact that Oreskes her self believes the global warming to be caused by man anyways lessen the value of his reasearch? i once again ask, if the author of your investigation was neutral? oh wait, we don't even know who he was, but we know that the person who claims this reasearch to show something is all but neutral. You are allso moving the goal posts as we move along, first you want peer reviewed cited studyes which addres the consensus on the global warming, when i give you those you no longer think them valid but demand studyes made from invidual scientists, like that would have any change on the subject. There are over 160 countryes that have ratified the kyoto protocol, the joint science academies agreed on the consensus on 2005, All the known academies of science agree on the consensus and have publically announced so, the only science academy ever to doubt human produced global warming (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, suprise suprise) is changing their view as "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members" After that there are no notable or known academies to disagree. It's mind blowing that some one in situation like this can even suggest that there wasn't consensus. Where would all those doubtfull scientist be? They arent members of any academies? they don't make any studyes on the subject? There are offcourse few invidual scientist who disagree, as there allways is, but they are tiny part of the picture. And most of even them agree that they are on the opposing side of the concensus, like Peiser did...
But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)