Text 16116, 155 rader
Skriven 2014-06-14 10:53:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GAYLEN HINTZ
Ärende: Right up your, errrr,
=============================
On 06-13-14, GAYLEN HINTZ said to JANIS KRACHT:


GH>For reasons unknown to us Janis Kracht said thus to Ward Dossche:


JK> Both your points are very true.  I'm not sorry I started just
JK> replying *PLONK to his messages.  He rants and raves about
JK> there being no proof of global warming meanwhile he presents
JK> no proof whatsoever of his own stance.


GH>Mostly I just lurk and keep out of discussions like this  sometimes even
GH>for good reasons. :)  However,  it is asinine to boldly say there is
GH>global warming simply based because everyone says so. I see far too often
GH>that everyone wants verifiable proof that it does not exist but where is
GH>the actual proof that it does?


GH>Sure you hear it all the time... thousands of scientists are saying that
GH>it's true but based on what?  I have heard that meteorologists (sp)  are
GH>disinclined to agree with that and in fact believe the world is in a
GH>cooling trend.  OK, what weather people have said thus I don't know but
GH>it's enough for me to cast doubt on the whole situation.  I could scour
GH>the net and find sources that would support both claims but which one is
GH>really correct and which ones are biased in their reporting?


GH>It is confusing to say the least. :)


GH>OK, just put my two cents in here, let's just see how long it takes before
GH>I"m blasted my the zealots on both sides. <g>


There is a real big problem with the global warming-champion side; All
over the world; in Russia, England, France, the USA, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, etc etc; there are scientists, meteorologists, geologosts,
who have come out against the `global warming' scare.


And in pretty much every case, they are immediately attacked by the
`global warming' believers, ostracized by academia, some have even
have their lives threatened, their careers ended abruptly for no
reason...for the single reason of coming out against the `global
warming' scare.


Let me name a few:

Timothy Ball


Timothy Ball has a Phd in Climatology from the Queen Mary, University of
London, he is a former professor of Climatology in the Geography department
at the University of Winnipeg from which he retired in 1996.


Robert M. Carter


Robert M. Carter has a Phd in Paleontology, and is also a marine geologist.


There is a long list of academics;


Don Easterbrook
William Kinninmonth
Willem DeLange
Sebastian Lunig
Cliff Ollier
Franco Battaglia
Christopher Essex
Soren Floderus
Stewart Franks
Eigil Friis-Christensen
Fred Golberg
John ShadeGerd Weber

And on and on and on....


Last night I ran several of these names on the Internet, and found they all
have some things in common; They were scientists of one sort or another,
they DARED to criticize the so-called `consensus' on `global warming', and
they were all attacked over their opposition to it. Many of them had articles
they wrote `altered' by the IPCC group to either reflect a far different
conclusion they had demonstrated in a paper they'd written, or had critical
information they'd put forward in a paper, deliberately omitted by the
people who wrote the IPCC's assessment reports, or altered in some way.


Some have had their careers ended abruptly, had their lives threatened,
much of their academic biography mis-represented or out and out falsified,
and on and on.


One thing comes across real clear; that is NOT the way scientists do their
science.


Science is done with a critical eye. Not with political agendas.


One of the biggest problems with the IPCC is it is chock full of political
agenda, and its `science' suffers from it.


The people who's names I listed above dared to look at `global warming' with
a critical eye, from a scientific angle, and saw a far different view than the
`global warming' crowd. They were able to determine that the warming trend
seen in the last century, is no different than many of the warming trends
of centuries past, many of which were far more intense than seen in the
20th century. And that they (and the one in the 20th century) were nothing
more than typical, decadal and multi-decadal warming and cooling trends,
which the Earth has experienced for thousands and millions of years past.


And here's another thing I'd like to point out, and add a question to:


The Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old. This has been proven by many
methods, including the presence of rock in various places on Earth that
are just lying around on the surface, that have been determined to be
over 4 BILLION years old.


QUESTION:


This `climatology' science thing is...what?....40 or 50 years old? With
some climate records stretching back a few hundred years or so? And
along comes Man....with an industrial capacity thats maybe 250 or so
years old...with space-based technology that isn't even 100 years old
yet...and we're talking about *settled science*?


How can we talk `settled science', when Man's `computerized' and
`space-based' technology barely has its socks on?


Are they serious?!









---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)