Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (87497)	4/22/2012 1:30:20 PM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) of 89467

That is such bullshit. 99% of PHD atmospheric scientists believe in AGW. <<I believe in God.. Can I yet prove God's existence? No...>> But scientists can prove AGW which is why 99% believe in it. You just are not able to understsnd tehir proof! <<99.9% of the scientists (and the catholic church) several hundred years ago believed the sun revolved around the earth until Galileo stated otherwise.>> That was because the church illed the scientists. If the church had not threatened the scientists people would nto have beleived such nonsesne the church said was real! <<For well over a 1000 years "physicians" believed that disease was caused by "bad air" (Mal-Aria) http://www.greekmedicine.net/b_p/Four_elements.html >> And science showed it was not true, not the church. Yet, 99% of the scientists believe mankind is responsible for global warming? <<And the fact that so many other variables factor into climate science, from cosmic influences like the sun, to oceanic and geophysical influences, means that atmospheric sciences only perceive a portion of the equation.>> You have no idea what the PHD atmospheric scientists think or know! And the very fact you think these PHD dudes would ignore the historical context of the paleo climate change shows the breath taking degree of your ignorance. <<Most of them have ignored the effect that a 20-30% decline in phytoplankton has created in elevated CO2 levels. IMO, it's not "coincidence" that CO2 levels rising by 20-30% correlate with a similar reduction in phytoplankton levels.>> You do not know that, or as mentioned, what they know or do not now. <<I seldom see it mention, except by adherents to the Iron Fertilization theory.. The only thing they cite is growing acidification of the oceans killing phytoplankton, which to me is a "chicken-egg" argument.. Which predated the other? Would acidification be resolved if iron fertilization was undertaken to promote diatomic growth that would translate into "marine snow" and sequester that CO2 to the ocean bottom? So.. no.. I'm not convinced when 99% of the Phd (Piled High and Deep) climatologists tell me that mankind is responsible for global warming that they can't even properly quantify over a significant period of time. They can spin their models, and statistical methodologies from tree rings and other sources. But they cannot yet definitely state anything as a fact. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next