Posted on 08/17/2007 7:18:52 PM PDT by Reform Canada
There's far too much reliance on what "scientists" say or think.
What matters is what scientifically-gathered data show.
And the MSM does not report data, only opinion.
I read the article and it’s BIG theme was that “DENIERS” based their argument on the validity of scientific data.
WHATTA SHAME! The article must have been written before NASA was forced to revise its data to show that the 1930’s was the hottest decade.
ANYTHING that depends on a model depends on assumptions.
The assumptions of the modellers has been consistently OFF.
This is such a CROCK!
And all the assumptions are biased towards worst case scenarios. These assumptions compound and make the models grossly overestimate future impacts. They are a joke. The worst thing is modellers don't even have a grip on the impact of more cloud cover. They could actually help cool the earth, but the models assume cloud cover will add to the warming.
He usually warms up after a first date... Oh, Kelvin. Not Kevin. Never mind.
By the way, who voted for these guys to be able to set the temps and climate for the whole world? I must have missed that election.
As opposed to today's hysteria??? Anyone here an echo of "WOLF!" ???
Exactly. How far is it from "consensus" to "popular opinion" and how far from there to simply "fad" ???
It was just so funny because he could have made a simple argument that scientific instruments with such capabilities were just not available then like they are now...
It is interesting that this article appeared in the Boston Globe.
RFK, Jr. is knee deep in the fraudulent “cap and trade” proposals.
"On global cooling," he writes, "there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases." ...in 1975... the magazine reported that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." Moreover, it said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" -- everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover -- had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as "alarmist" and "discredited."Meachum is discredited, Newsweek is (twice) discredited, and -- you guessed it -- The Debate Is Over. ;') Thanks RC.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Wow! Thanks!!!
I thought that was the position AlGore was running for?
How can there be a consensus when they cannot get the correct temperature data on which to base it. NASA and NOAA can’t agree as to which was the warmest year in the contiguous 48 states.
-273 C = 0 Kelvin.
Like the scientists at NCI or FDA. No scientist has found a cure for any cancer yet. Yet we have spent BILLIONS on that.
Maybe we need to agree on what a scientist is or does. Maybe set a standard. Can you get a certificate or something?
Although I think you can become a scientologist... but that is another liberal scam too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.