![]() |
Here's a new link to the PDF:
http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio2...8-myth1970.pdf Those quotes are under the heading "Perpetuating the Myth", and are debunked by the paper. |
Quote:
(The whole list is here. http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html ) http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/250912__928051726.pdf Quote:
http://www.bepress.com/spp/vol1/iss1/1/ Quote:
Quote:
I have to go into a meeting or I would link to the other 10 papers I am continuing to browse through. But click on my link with Cherry Picked papers. Read the references. Read about their submission process. Read their numbers disproving the sources that prove AGW is happening. |
Coign, do you believe that the Earth, as a whole, is warming?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gifBut you can be sure the "global cooling consensus of the 70s" will pop up again. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If any model has an error, then it proves the entire conclusion is wrong? That only the reverse is true? Let's see. It did not predict the increased temperatures in the Andes. That proves global cooling is occurring? Why use that logic? Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts. Arguing by denial says zero facts and lots of opinions. Arguing by denial is how propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News lie. Since you are an honest person, you have no problem quoting specific number from at least ten of those 117 papers that show climate change is not occurring. After all, an honest person would never cite 117 papers without first reading and grasping every one. You will quote the specific numbers in each of ten papers due to honesty. Obviously it's not difficult. You read all 117 papers before recommending them. Therefore you already know where those numbers are. Only fools and liars would recommend 117 papers because a political agenda ordered them to believe. Clearly you are honest – you would not recommend something without first studying it – would you? Citing 117 papers recommended by extremists without reading them is only what brainwashed people do. People easily told how to think only recite rhetoric. An honest person will cite from at least ten papers, number by number, that shows no temperature increases. Honest science says you will not use arguments based in denial. Honest science says you have and will quote real data. Good. Otherwise you would have only been insulting people. |
|
Quote:
Where is your proof? From University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU)? From World Meteorological Organization? From Al Gore? My "denial" argument is showing that the proof is wrong. Your proof is costing us money and creating legislation to control our access to energy. My "denial" is to free us from an over powering government trying to control our life. Show me your argument and I will show you the paper that says it's wrong. As for the comment, "Did you read all 117 papers?" Where are your papers. Show me the ones you read to prove that mankind is heating up the Earth leading to natural disasters so you pass legislation that says I can't enjoy a clearly lit room, or buy an SUV, or must tax me and spend 90 Billion of my dollars on "clean" energy. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...83,00.html?dbk Your proof is costing us and your proof is based on faulty science. I HAVE to take the denial proof because the science I read says, "You can't prove your results with a cause and here is why." Yet you act like you know exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what we need to do to fix it and you are flat out wrong. |
Cogin, don't waste your time. Think Ted Kaczynski in a cabin in the woods.
|
Quote:
I would also suggest that regulating offshore drilling or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or regulating emissions is hardly controlling your life and has a positive economic impact, as does investing in clean energy technology. |
Quote:
So easy, if you were posting honestly. Post numbers that prove no global warming. You cannot? You were lying? Your 117 papers do not say what you posted? Then why were you insulting everyone while wasting bandwidth? An honest Coign easily posted numbers from ten papers ... if those papers prove that global warming does not exist. If you made a recommendation without reading them, then you lied. Are you despicable? Avoiding the label is easy. Just post numbers from ten papers that prove your claims? It is called integrity. Only an honest Coign would immediately quote numbers from ten of those 117 papers that prove global warming does not exist. Because an honest Coign worries about his integrity. Liars never do. Will Coign insult everyone in the Cellar by avoiding a simple challenge? You read and understood 117 papers before you recommended them – as any honest person would do. So an ethical Coign easily posts numbers from ten papers. An extremist Coign cannot. Will post argumentatively to avoid the challenge. Are you a liar? Or do you post numbers from ten papers. Time to find out who you really are. Honest or ‘brainwashed by soundbytes’? Which is you? |
Quote:
Quote:
No need to insult the poor chap just because he disagrees with you. I thought you reserved that treatment just for me. Now I feel slighted. :sniff: |
Here we go again.
|
Quote:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-energy-sector |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.