|
El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Tu respuesta no se ha enviado.
Tu entrada se ha publicado correctamente.
 |
Grupos de noticias: alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die, alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, alt.religion.scientology.xenu
De: Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
Fecha: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Dom 1 nov 2009 00:18
Asunto: Re: Blithering Anti-Science AGW Denying Retards & Various Conspiracy Kooks Versus Science
On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, Argent <last_think...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Global Warming Why would anybody want to debate consensus? AGW whackos refuse to > What the science says... debate the science. > Scientist roll call Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and Yes, this is Al Gores and the IPCC's approach. > parading of credentials. > On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as Who is "you." What is a National Post Denier series? This post is > presented in the National Post Denier series. gibberish. > On the other side, you have the The other side? The other side of what? > IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global > warming. > If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific Who cares? Science isn't about consensus. Only a retard would > organisations also endorse the consensus: confuse your argument for a valid scientic argument. > * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration This was an absurdly biased study. Why not discuss the study itself. > * Environmental Protection Agency > * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies > * American Geophysical Union > * American Institute of Physics > * National Center for Atmospheric Research > * American Meteorological Society > * The Royal Society of the UK > * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society > * American Association for the Advancement of Science > Academies of Science from 19 countries > The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. > 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: > * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) > * Royal Society of Canada > * Chinese Academy of Sciences > * Academie des Sciences (France) > * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) > * Indian National Science Academy > * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) > * Science Council of Japan > * Russian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Society (United Kingdom) > * National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) > Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as > several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing > the IPCC consensus: > * Australian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts > * Caribbean Academy of Sciences > * Indonesian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Irish Academy > * Academy of Sciences Malaysia > * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand > * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences > Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature It's little more than a propaganda tactic. > However, it's more Then why are you not doing this, dumbass. > relevant to examine peer reviewed journals > - scientists can have their opinions Yep. BTW, there is zero peer reviewed and/or experimental evidence > but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives > the peer review process. that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. This is a fact. > A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" Irrrelevant. Science isn't about consensus you mental retard. You > published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the > consensus position that global warming is man caused. stated this yourself above. Pay attention. > 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment Irrelevant. > either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). > More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...\ Who cares? > Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus That is not to Hey retard. You can't reject consensus. Consensus isn't a > say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. hypothesis. Get a clue. > Klaus-Martin Irrelevant. Same reason. > Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims > 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. > In these cases, it's instructive Hey retard. You can't refute consensus. Consensus isn't a > to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if > so, what their arguments are. hypothesis. Get a clue. > You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic Why would anybody bother? By your own admission consensus is > studies here... irrelevant. > Judge the science, You haven't presented any science you idiot. > not the person Ultimately what matters is what a person says, My mind is greatly determined by the fact that the AGW scientists > not who says it (that's not to say there's people I respect and pay attention to > but I don't automatically agree with everything they might say). In the global > warming debate, there are smart people on both sides subscribing to polar > opposite views - intelligence does not always equate to correctness. This is a > debate where people often form a view then muster up the arguments (valid or > not) to back up their preconception. > So note the credentials but ultimately, make your judgements based on the > scientific arguments. refuse to debate or discuss the science. They only wish to hide behind consensus, as you have here. Debes registrarte antes de enviar mensajes.
Para enviar una entrada, antes deberás formar parte del grupo.
Antes de enviar entradas, actualiza tu alias en la configuración de la suscripción.
No dispones del permiso necesario para enviar entradas.
| |||||||||||||