Re: Gore's Global Warming


" dbu,." <nsp@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nsp-0A3212.19082709072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Yd2dnSnvGOEVXQ_bRVn_vgA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Cathy F." <clfrclfr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

" dbu,." <nsp@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nsp-E2BBFA.16553509072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <7d6dnbzDi9i77g_bRVn_vgA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Cathy F." <clfrclfr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

" dbu,." <nsp@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nsp-735783.11543609072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <GpednWFvu7HO-w_bRVn_vw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Cathy F." <clfrclfr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Datki.2424$CJ4.150@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:11:27 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

There IS NO PROOF THAT MAN caused climate change....NONE.

False, because lots of proof for it has been published in peer-
reviewed
scientific journals.


There you go woth the 'peer-reviewed' crap again!

Of COURSE the 'peers' are going to agree, Nimrod!

Why? What guarantee would there be of other scientists agreeing
with
another scientist's paper/theory? And if peer review isn't in
place,
then
what credence could one give to a paper/theory that hasn't been
reviewed
by
other experts in the field?

Cathy

Scientists are no different than a bunch of school kids. They all
vie
for recognition (and funding). They are human, there is safety in
numbers so they stick together, some do anyway especially on heated
political matters that affect their funding chances, :)

So, if peer review isn't in place, then what would be in place (in its
place!)?

Cathy

I like the non-conformist type of scientist. One who has his or her
own ideas. I hate general agreement, consensus, peer review...ect...

etc. (= et cetera) ;-P (I had to throw that in there, since I know you
just
love being corrected, re: spelling errors!)

But...

BTW - there's a general consensus among scientists that the earth is not
flat, that its axis is titled, that the planets revolve around the sun,
that
each planet rotates, etc. Is that a problem? ;-P

Cathy

I know you like to needle me and I did that intentionally just to see if
you would make a comment, you did :).

And I'm the queen.


We all know the earth is not flat, I have been around it so I know, LOL.

What we don't know is the contention that climate change, global warming
is caused or even partly caused by human activity. We must suspect that
with all the cars going to and from work everyday and the ancillary
manufacturing processes have some impact on the environment, how much is
only a estimate (in my opinion) at this stage. Work should continue,
monitoring should also continue, but for governments and it's citizens
to jump off a cliff for it in my humble opinion is premature.

If its a general consensus that the activities of people impact the earth's
environment in a negative way, then way wait around? At what point does one
go, "Oops - time we got going on this issue; hindsight is 20/20!?" Why not
do what we can now - at least to a reasonable degree - to mitigate that
impact at least somewhat?

The earth
has been through these warm/cool periods before and when you look at the
amount of time we humans have been on earth and the even shorter time
from the start of the industrial revolution, it's a very, very small
slice of time. If human population is the major or even minor cause,
short of draconian mass population reductions I'm not sure if we could
really do anything meaningful about it anyway.

How would you propose to massively reduce populations of the earth, to
say pre 1900 or even pre 1940? 1950's even?

I don't propose it - haven't sat & thought about it.

Cathy


--



carpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cold fusion is back!
    ... because you ignore the fact that the peer ... :>: review committee of an internationally respected scientific journal ... :>: found their paper acceptable for publication and that OTHER scientists ... reviewed journals and has reviewed papers for peer review journals, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
    ... >> PEER PUBLISHED. ... > Peer review doesnt mean that you are right. ... > means nothing to scientists. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
    ... >> PEER PUBLISHED. ... > Peer review doesnt mean that you are right. ... > means nothing to scientists. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
    ... >> PEER PUBLISHED. ... > Peer review doesnt mean that you are right. ... > means nothing to scientists. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Independant this morning...
    ... the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth ... His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already ... individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
Loading