Time Magazine Compares Iwo Jima to Global Warming

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Lol...or the proponents.



True; the sticking point is where we are asked, then cajoled, then finally forced through legislation to completely change our national way of life and spend bucketloads of money "solving" a problem that is still purely unproven theory.

So, that means that we should not spend money on programs that rely on the theories of gravity and relativity?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jmichna

The "global warming skeptics" whose works I have read are actually scientist and engineers, and they raise technical doubts and questions, which have yet to be answered by the Believers. They are not expressing opinion. They are reporting actual data, actual findings. They are saying the Warmists' claims do not add up.

Where do you think Global Warming Believers get their funding? Should their findings also be called into doubt because their sources of funding have a vested interest in promoting Global Warmism?

Until the skeptics' findings and objections are answered, the Warmists are just "Believers"... and if consensus makes the Believers right, then that says very little for the state of modern "Science"... you might just as well go back to Astrology and Alchemy.

Let's do the science... present all the data, challenge all the methodologies, challenge all the measurements, challenge all the conclusions. Let good, solid science decide what is really going on.

True scientific method never avoids skepticism, it embraces it, so that the truth can be found out.

I challenge you to visit the website realclimate.org and argue with those guys. I'm sure they have seen and addressed all of the "studies" you cite.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

lol...etta, how can you possibly compare the "theory of gravity" to the theory of man-made global warming.

I'd have to be hammered to even think about making that comparison...they are nothing alike.

Could you argue that there is just as much evidence to support the theory of man-made GW as there is to support the existence of gravity.

Frank

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jmichna

I assume re "Why "Global Warmism"? Gee... politics. maybe? "

That was not presented as scientific anything.

I submit that much of the global warming skepticism is based on politics.

[east_stingray]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

So, that means that we should not spend money on programs that rely on the theories of gravity and relativity?

Ok, I'll play the game and attack your argument with a one-liner.

Are all theories equal?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by east_stingray

Ok, I'll play the game and attack your argument with a one-liner.

Are all theories equal?

Not yet.

[east_stingray]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I submit that much of the global warming skepticism is based on politics.

I submit that much of global warming alarmism is based on politics.


You're on to something! This game is fun!

[Etta Place]

I have to go. I suggest that you all go to the Grist blog or to realclimate.org if you want to argue about this issue.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

It's the McIntyre and McKitrick challenge that was being discussed on the Grist blog. ...

You are probably aware that McIntyre and McKitrick's analytical critique of Mann's Hockey Stick graph is not the only study to debunk Mann. For example, two National Academy of Sciences analyses came to the same conclusions in 2006 (the second one lead by Dr Edward Wegman) and the findings presented to Congress the same year... the Hockey Stick is broken.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I have to go. I suggest that you all go to the Grist blog or to realclimate.org if you want to argue about this issue.

I'll do that if you read The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon