B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 11, 4:07 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
same people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic
global warming is far weaker than the scientific community seems to
think.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
You've clearly forgotten, or never read, the propaganda put out by theOn Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:08:31 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
Found on rec.crafts.metalworking, not crossposted because we all know
what
happens when I do that!
----
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:15 -0600, S. Caro wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE...
[
1,700 UK scientists back climate science (AP) - 3 hours ago
LONDON - Over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement
defending the evidence for human-made climate change in the wake of
hacked e-mails that emboldened climate skeptics. ....
Yea, but MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.
--Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming--
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm
Is this a matter that's decided by a majority vote?
Unfortunately in the public mind there is still controversy about
whether or not AGW is happening. The science is now pretty well settled.
We are changing the atmosphere by measurable amounts and in the long
term it will have consequences - mostly for low lying populous areas
like London, Tokyo, New York, and New Orleans (not worth rebuilding).
And in some cases whole countries like Bangladesh on a river delta.
But it is exactly the same sort of manufactured controversy as that
about the risks of smoking or not wearing a seat belt when driving.
Absolutely wrong. In those cases, unimpachable experiment and
statistical analysis could prove causality beyond any reasonable
doubt. The case for AGW is far weaker.
same people who are now telling you that the case for anthropogenic
global warming is far weaker than the scientific community seems to
think.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen