 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.238.190.31
In Reply to: Scientists respond to An Inconvenient Truth posted by clarkjohnsen on June 15, 2006 at 09:28:21:
and I'll give you a hundred bucks! (Hint: you'll never find one, 'cause it don't exist).This is nothing but political posturing and belly-aching from people who refuse to face the facts.
Follow Ups:
In 2003 they published an article by Soon and Baliunas, abstracted in the header below. It says exactly what you don't want it to say.It will be amusing to watch you weasel out of this one, because there the thing is for all to see.
I'll give you my mailing address in private e-mail; a USPS money order preferred.
clark
see link-A quote from the article by David Appell: "The Soon et al. paper is so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all."
Perhaps I should have said "peer reviewed and accepted".
- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322 (Open in New Window)
But not quite. You owe me $100 fair and square.Put your money where your mouth is.
And by the way, thousands of journal articles are challenged every year. So what?
clark
With scientific facts one usually selects the ones that fit his world vision.
s
When it comes right down to it, you are a spectator. You can't play this game any more than you can claim expertise in biology.I have said it many times before. You don't count, neither do I.
even the scientists take a back seat to the work. And the work strengthens the human induced hypothesis.I don't have the expertise to 'peer review' that article. But I find very telling that Soon and Baliunas defined the current warming out of existence. Looks like a cheap stunt, but what do I know.
a
.
.
From the article linked by Clark:"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun."
Now here is a supporting point of view from Duke University. It that reputable enough? Although they are not downplaying the global warming impetus from greenhouse gaseous emissions, they certainly are providing an educated argument for the sun being mostly responsible for what the GW cultists have been blaming on greenhouse gas emissions.
...your work is getting reviewed by people who get their funding from all the same sources, so you can count on political correctness.clark
How many anti-racism works were published in the Nazi Germany?
Science is always open to opposing opinions, indeed it is built on the premise that theories and "working models" are made to be demolished. If a "climate scientist" with credentials were to present a dissenting article to, say, Scinetific American or Nature, the editors would welcome it, since a little controversy is always good for sales.
The whole branches of science have been pushed and destroyed before.
-
As soon as you introduce into science things politically acceptable and not, you kill it. This is happening now.
d
.
s
NT
.
.
Vic,
science works like that. You get to a certain point and the crowd jumps the fence. After that point they don't want to hear from the Old Guard.That does NOT mean the Old Guard is ignored. Far from it. There are many instances in the history of science where the old guard has managed to destroy the new theory.
If someone came up with a REAL argument that kills GW, it would get published. The scientist would announce his results, and the 'war' would begin. This has not happened, and at this point I don't think it can happen.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
