Welcome! Here are the website rules, as well as some tips for using this forum.
Need to contact us? Visit https://heatinghelp.com/contact-us/.
Click here to Find a Contractor in your area.
FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.
Comments
-
John,
what about ALL those "experts" that predicted 2007's hurricane season to be worst than the katrina season? How could ALL those experts be wrong? where were ALL those terrible hurricanes this year?
they claimed the katrina hurricane or 2006 matched thier computer models EXACTLY, yes I heard this on CNN, matched their computer models EXACTLY!!!!! you see any irony in this? maybe the old 'garbage in garbage out?' a little hint sight adjusting?
at one time all scientists believed there was an 'ether' later they ALL admitted there was no 'ether'. science is not allways correct as you constant refer to the Wright brothers???
0 -
Proof
The burden of proof lies with those attempting to show a causal relationship between human activities and global warming. Claims cannot be taken as "true until disproven". They must be taken as "untrue until proven". It is the same as those accused of a crime being innocent until proven guilty.
In my opinion, there are reasons to begin conserving energy that are more pressing than global warming. Regardless of the differences in each of our motives, I think I can safely say we all agree that it is time to reduce our consumption.0 -
That is precisely the scientific method
The Science (magazine) article that John R. found stated that there is consensus in the scientific community on anthropogenic climate change. Support for this was statements on behalf of the 1) National Academy of Sciences, 2) IPCC, 3) American Meteorological Society, 4) American Geophysical Union and 5) American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Firstly, you can toss out the IPCC. It is a political body within a political body. Now, the article did not indicate by what methods the other orgs arrived at their positions. Via a board of directors vote? By all members? And by what percentage did the votes fall into yes and no? It would be nice to know these critical pieces of information because the reporting is garbage without it.
Now we look at the 928 peer-reviewed papers. The article writer said that they were divided into the six categories (multiple categories for one paper is okay). Who did this? The author of the article? Or was it a juried team? Isn't knowing this important? Is she a scientist or merely a journalist?
She said that "75% fell into the first three categories" and yet she also said that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." If the second statement is true, shouldn't the figure in the first statement be 100%; i.e., how can both statements be true?
Always, but always beware of journalists.0 -
The results are in:
Everyone agrees global warming exists.
Of the of 100 or so "resident scientists" here on The Wall, who state global warming might have little to do with; or nothing to do with man's activity or, that insufficient data has been collected to make any life changing actions - as of yet in this regard, one man, and only one man - believes it is "certifiably and unquestionably" a result of man's involvement.
More to follow...
But not from me(;-o)0 -
Good Science........
Bill or Karl,
Now you are heading in the right direction. You are about to do good science. You read the article and you are researching the validity of the work. Also find out more about those scientists. A good scientist does independent research. He lets the results of the research speak for itself. He doesn't try and match an outcome with the study or use a study to sway the truth. I beleive that those independent Scientists were good scientists, all 928 of them.
Maybe I am wrong. If I am I am sure you will let me know.
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Essays on Science and Society
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/archive/2004.dtl#306
JR0 -
Science
How do they measure and compute the global temperature? Are all sources accurate or precise enough to really deduce anything meaningful from the data? What is the margin of error in the calculation?
I do not know any of these things.
The term "Global Warming" has so much surreptitious non-scientific garbage associated with it that I would rather not say I agree that global warming exists. However, I will entertain the hypothesis that the global temperature *may* be rising.
Public opinion is very rarely based on any fact, is almost never based on the most pertinent facts, and is never based on all the facts. I am no sociologist, but as I understand the world, people tend to believe what they hear, and therefore they perpetuate memes like global warming.
The end result of all this discussion is that conservation is a good idea. One can deny the existence of global warming and agree with conservation and the idea of increasing our energy independence.0 -
I'm a mechanic not a sientist
J-P,
I'm a mechanic. I fix things.
I will spend my time learning Radiant, Hydronic, Solar, Geothermal, Energy Efficiency design and installation.
I am results oriented. I will be busy changing the oil in our cars.
You will need to find a scientist to help you with that question.
I can just say that I learned that info from some of the scientists I found on the internet.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Yes........
Andrew,
Yes,
You can still doubt global warming is true.
As long as you do your part to conserve.
Because unlike a court case where O.J. was found inocent.
If the earth is truly warming up and we don't do anything.
Armagedin could become REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
For JR: The \"consensus\" report...
is complete Kool-Aid. Even better, it's the official Jim Jones purple stuff. Follow the link, or simply read on.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
"Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gores An Inconvenient Truth, http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323
However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.
Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called consensus view that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view."
LESS THAN TWO PERCENT! But I'm sure it's just big oil funding The Deniers. They must have spent more crushing that report than they did buying the 300 MPG carburetor. You know, the one from the 70's? hahahaha. Who cares about the stoichiometric ratio?
BTW: The enviro-fascists spent 3 times as much money for their glassy eyed candidates than evil "big oil" did on theirs. (In 2004, via 527's.) It's readily available info, as the reporting of such money is required by law.
The Pope told Galileo that the debate was over, too. The universe revolved around Earth, that's that. Locked him up 'til he died of old age, unless I'm mistaken.
More to come...
0 -
sorry john,
I'm not asking for your help here, just asking you to look at what you are posting.0 -
What is your problem??????
Tom,
Good science means listening to the right stuff and right people. The people that do independent research. 928-0. Science magazine does not distort the facts. They qualified 928 papers. 928-0 you just can't ignore that. To do so is irresponsible science. The other 11,0000 papers were either outdated or from a unreliable source. Or just never entered for review. Even so your a
Are you saying that Science magazine published a paper that picked and choosed the content based on political views and ignored other papers because they didn't like what they said?
That is a huge acuzation. Science magazine fully reviews its sources. It only publishes scientific results. Remember what magazine this is. Then look at all of the organizations that back up the paper. 100% of them still back up the paper today. no one changed there minds and said they want there organization removed from the list.
If it were true then there would be a law suite or That is the results. Yes they excluded 11,000 papers. 11,000 papers didn't meet the criteria to be scientific. This is a well respected scientific journal.
Come on your going to listen to a social scientist over a climatologist? Your smarter then that. Also your source is from a politition. That my fiend is not good enough. Polititions lie and distort the truth all the time.
Scientists don't lie.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
I Really Believe...
... that the current fit of man-made global warming maddness is going to cost FAR more than the complete nothing that the Y2K scare turned out to be. (Anybody remember "Y2K"?) The media was filled with endless reports of "experts" (Can anyone recall the names of ANY of those media-dubbed Y2K "experts"?) predicting planes falling from the sky, ships running aground, missles launching themselves, power grids & communications systems failing... Some countries spent countless billions of dollars preparing. Others spent nothing, or next to nothing. And what happened? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The media gets hold of a story, spins the info to sell more ad time, and here we go again... The spirit of P.T. Barnum is very much alive and well in the man-made global warming camp. He may even be their leader.0 -
I can prove your statement is false...........
Tom,
Real science always prevails.
[British social scientist Benny] Peiser didn't find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus.
Please read below:
If you really want to know about global warming, the place to go is peer-reviewed journals. And let's say that if the overwhelming majority of articles over the years in such journals agreed, then it'd be somewhat insane to disagree with that conclusion. It'd be great if someone had reviewed all these articles over the last decade or so. Someone did:
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy [sic -- Naomi] Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view.
...
The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be "substantive disagreement in the scientific community" that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn't.
[British social scientist Benny] Peiser didn't find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers "reject or doubt" the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it "does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association."
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Lies
Science may not "lie", but the interpretation of results plays a big factor in the conclusions drawn from measured data. An incorrect conclusion does not have to be the result of a lie. In fact two completely different and possibly contradicting conclusions can be drawn by two people from the same data.
As always, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
NOAA says we just had our warmest winter ever. I see no mention of how this was measured or calculated. It seemed warm here in Montana. Is this caused by man? No one knows for sure.0 -
Watermelons
For all of those enjoying this wonderful discourse:
There are few true environmentalists. Most are Watermelons. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. It fits, perfectly. The thing about Communism that never fails to amuse: Communism is good for everyone but the Party Leadership, I.E. Al Gore need not alter HIS lifestyle, but YOU do.
It's not just the redistribution of wealth underlying the "save the earth" crowd. It's about control. Control over what you say. (Hague style trials for warming skeptics) Control over what you do (Dictating the car you can buy, or the lightbulbs allowed on the store shelves) Control of what you think (the brainwashing of children taking place in public schools regarding the environment)
To answer some potential accusations, err, questions: 1) Yes, I'm a Conservative Party member. In a perfect world, I'd be a Libertarian. 2) "Do whatever the hell you want, as long as I don't have to pay for it" is my abridged definition of Libertarianism. 3) When people want to do whatever they want to and expect ME to pay for it, I have a problem. 4) The greatest man who chose to suffer politics is Winston Churchill. If I may paraphrase: "If you aren't a Liberal by the time you are twenty, you have no heart. If you aren't a Conservative by the time you are forty, you have no brain." 5) I couldn't care less about how you "feel" in regards to an issue. The only thing that matters is what you think. 6) I strive to never be emotionally vested in my opinions. 7) My gravity system retrofit is the finest example you have ever seen in your entire life, bar none. Just kidding Dan. A little jab from my "high horse".
0 -
Unless...
... I'm mistaken - and please correct me if I'm wrong - but I could swear that Al Gore is a politician.0 -
I'm just a mechanic...........
Tom,
I'm just a mechanic. I fix things. I don't care about politics.
I just care about our planet.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
As I said,
same beverage, just a different flavor. Rock on. ;-)Retired and loving it.0 -
Yes he is.........
Tony,
How right you are Al Gore is a politition.
I don't listen to him. He talks the talk but doesn't do the walk.
I listen to 928 peer review studies from the scientific comunity.
928-0
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
And which
planet would that be?
I used to be a planet. A nice one. A little eccentric maybe, but loved.
I was voted out!
928-0
0 -
Here comes the tin foil
wrapped around my head to keep me from drinking the Kool-Aid. Guess what JR: Oreskes is a SOCIAL SCIENTIST! Not a climatologist. Ironically, just like the author of the rebuttal! 11,000 papers from CLIMATE and METEOROLOGICAL SCIENTISTS that didn't follow the scientific method? Alas, it becomes critical thinking that we discuss. How many complaints of Science magazine's lack of objectivity would it take for you? Ten? Fifty? Nine hundred and twenty eight? Direct quotes from the High Priests of Warming regarding the coming Ice Age, circa 1975? Living in Central NY perhaps skews my perspective. I'm surrounded by lakes formed by GLACIERS that melted, oh, a few years before I was born. Or my grandparents. Oh, probably (definitely) before the ice bridge allowed the ancestors of "Native" Americans to walk here. A couple of years before the SUV and Al Gore's gas lamp posts, anyway. I'm not gonna drink it... 0 -
Everyone failed so far...........
Tony,
I am sorry to say that I have been parked at this thread here for two days now.
I have proved my point through 928 peer reviewed science papers. 928-0. So far efforts have been made to try and discredit my findings. Not one person succeeded so far.
Yes I remember y2k. I researched it and didn't believe it was going to be a problem. Most experts were happy to be making money but admitted to me everything was overblown. I did nothing. I ignored y2k. I don't listen to news reporters either.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
928 to 0
hey john, where is it said the the 928 scientist insist that man is soley responsible for the recent warming? not the CO2 rise, just the warming?
this seems to be your claim here?0 -
Look through the data base..........928-0
Tom,
There is a data base of peer reviewed science papers. Anyone can enter a paper. Once reviewed by peers to be scientifically worthy they put the paper in the data base.
928 papers in that data base are written about climate change.
928 say global warming is happening and man is the cause.
The score is 928-0.
Fine, find a paper submit it, get it though the data base and the score will be 928-1
I will be ready to listen to you.
I will compare the results of the 928 to your one paper.
The score is 928 to 0. That means I won't find an opposing paper to listen to.
Right???????????
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
you've read 928 paper
wow john, you've read all those papers?0 -
There Is A...
... substantial amount of info to suggets that many of the scientists who originally participated in the study had their findings "edited" by the folks who presented the document. These scientists were - well - enraged that their info was being massaged to fit a preconceived result (that man-mad global warming is real), and demanded that their findings be published as per their original work. When this was not forthcoming, they withdrew their names, and refused to sign the document.
It's easy to score a shutout when you skew the rules such that the other team doesn't get a turn at bat.0 -
It is a scientific data base.......
J-P,
It is a scientific data base of papers. These papers are looked at by other scientists to classify the paper as worthy.
This person did a search on climate change in the data base. kind of like a google search.
They found 928 papers on climate change.
All 928 said that the earth is warming up and man is the cause.
That is 928-0.
What I am telling the critics of climate change is to submit a paper to the data base. If the paper goes through then the score will be 928-1.
You have to admit that is compelling evidence.
JR
Read my post above.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
But...
... that's exactly who's pushing the man-made global warming wheelbarrow, John.0 -
I never read one.
J-P,
I never read one. I let the scientists do there job. They tell me what is happening to our planet.
The score is 928-0 When it is 928-1 and just one creditable scientists rejects global warming, then and only then will I begin to read and even think about disputing the findings.
My job is to fix it. I am just a mechanic.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Lets get the facts straight
I actually do not spend much time at all watching TV. Perhaps a couple hours a week depending on if I can catch a good show.
Favorite Good shows:
This old house (I might catch an episode every other week).
NOVA (I might catch an episode once a month).
Stargate (I usually catch every other week).
60 Minutes (once in a while)
Extreem Home Makeover (perhaps every other week).
A few minutes of TV news once in a while.
An occasional TV moovie.
A few minutes of something here or there that holds my interest occasionally.
But, I also read a lot - and periodically spend a day or two in a major university libraray where I can read a variety of sceince and engineering journals. Know what - I almost certainly read that "Science" article you mention that identified 900+ peer reviewed articles. However, since I also have read (or at least skimmed) perhaps 100 of those articles (or more) I know that while the scientist involved agree on global warming and that mankind is having an effect... They disagree a lot on how much and why.
Fine, the CO2 graph goes straight up. Nothing new to me. Have you seen the all the other graphs on all the other things affecting our enviroment.
Concerning the CO2 graph. Believe it or not... one of the things that is perplexing scientist a lot is why the graph has not gone up a lot more (and I truely mean a lot more).
If you calculate the approximate amount of carbon burned in the last several hunderd years, and assume that it was all emited as CO2 into the atmosphere --- Then there should be lots more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Where did all that "excess" CO2 go? No one is really sure, but there are several theories about where it has gone.
I have not read a single science paper that indicates that we really know how the carbon cycle works to a high degree on this earth. We know part of it, but the scientist are still baffled by a large missing chunk of the equation.
Now, based on my extensive reading; I am going to hold to my position that I believe that a lot of other things are contributing to the manmade problem (and not just CO2 emmissions), and that many scientist are not sure how much the manmade problems are causing the current extent of global warming.
You are of course free to disagree, and I may be wrong in the end - perhaps it is all CO2 caused and none of those other issues or emmisions matter. I just did not make up my mind by looking at just the information on CO2 and climate warming.
However, there are scientist out there who do state that the conservative thing is to assume that man is contributing greatly to the current warming - as if you are wrong then it causes less long term harm to the world environment. I do not disagree with that. Just be sure that you adopt that as a "better safe than sorry" position instead of claiming that something is true without the real evidence in.
In the end the internet can provide a lot of information out there. The real question that needs to be asked is are you getting the range of opinion presented in the more factual manners of publications.
If you want a real education: Join the AAAS and get Science Magaizine delivered straight to your door. While I don't expect you to be able to follow all of the hard science papers. The general issue summaries are generally understandable.
Have a great day,
Perry0 -
Peer reviewed?
Umm, JR, what about your previous post implying Naomi/Nancy was a climatologist? That seems to be, well, conveniently forgotten. Care to state on the record her Social Scientist vs. Climatologist "credentials"? Also, peer reviewed? 928? Does that imply "peer approved"? I'll go one-for-one, JR. Do you actually expect a free ride for 928 piles of...
BTW: Why would the chair of climate science at MIT be a Denier? Would you like to provide a list of scientists pro warming? I'll provide the rebuttal...0 -
find me just one peer reviewed paper......
Tom,
Go and find me one peer reviewed paper that meets the criteria for the data base.
I am only asking for one lousy paper.
Until then leave me alone!!!!!!
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Ahh John...
If what you describe in this message is how the paper reached it's conclusions.... It is definiately not science.
In science - real science - you do not do a keyword search on a database and then report the results based on the papers you found...
That's not even valid statistics.
Ugg...
Please read my other post above where I responded to you.
Might I suggest that before you comment further on the specific article - that you read it. If you are going to reference it and make it your key argument... you should at least read it and see exactly what they did say.
To state that you have not read it, and are just reporting the numbers that it reports... but that it is extreemly valid...
And that we should act on that?
Now how would you react to someone who comes up to you and tells you that something is true because some article says so... but that they have not read the article; they just know it is true...
I earlier welcomed someone who presented good research... Good research means that you read - or at least review - the information you are presenting.
I can find charts that say lots of things. You have to be putting them in context - and you can only do that if you read various articles on the subject (and reading all sides to a debate helps).
Perry0 -
928-0, 1 paper for me to read, 92,800 to change my mind
Perry
When a paper makes the data base with an opposing view i will find an expert to read it for us. I am not a scientist and most likely couldn't even understand the papers any way.
928-0
I am a mechanic!!!!!!!
After all my goal is to not prove any thing.
If there is a slight possibility we are hurting our planet then I will work hard to stop global warming. For me it will take just one paper out of 928 for me to work hard to stop global warming.
Bring me one opposing paper and 1 will read it. There isn't one!!!!!!!!!
For me to change my stance I will need to see proof in 92,800 papers. Yes 92,8000!!!!!!!
I will be working to save our planet until you show me proof the panet is safe.
I don't want any proof of global warming. I could careless.
I just one 92,800 papers that oppose and prove our planet is safe.
LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!
I proved my point a long time ago. This debate is over.
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
This debate is over, Our planet won the debate!!!
Everyone,
Out of 928 peer reviewed articles on global warming in a peer reviewed scientific database. Not one disagreed with the consensus. NOT ONE!!!
928-0
The earth is warming up and man is the cause.
That is what they said.
If you bring me one oposing scientific third party peer reviewed paper I promise to read it.
For me to change my mind it will take 92,800 third party peer reviwed papers.
If there is more then a 1% chance we are causing our planet to warm up by excerting to much co2 then I am going to work hard to reduce co2 emissions.
This debate is over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am done here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The debate is a clear victory, 928-0.
It is now time to go to work and save this planet.
I am willing to do my part.
Are you willing to do your part?
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
PEER REVIEW?
Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."
What's wrong with the current system?
What could make it better?
Does it even work at all? Indeed, an abundance of data from a range of journals suggests peer review does little to improve papers. In one 1998 experiment designed to test what peer review uncovers, researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research paper. More than 200 reviewers identified an average of only two errors. That same year, a paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that reviewers couldn't spot two-thirds of the major errors in a fake manuscript. In July 2005, an article in JAMA showed that among recent clinical research articles published in major journals, 16% of the reports showing an intervention was effective were contradicted by later findings, suggesting reviewers may have missed major flaws.
Some critics argue that peer review is inherently biased, because reviewers favor studies with statistically significant results. Research also suggests that statistical results published in many top journals aren't even correct, again highlighting what reviewers often miss. "There's a lot of evidence to (peer review's) downside," says Smith. "Even the very best journals have published rubbish they wish they'd never published at all. Peer review doesn't stop that." Moreover, peer review can also err in the other direction, passing on promising work: Some of the most highly cited papers were rejected by the first journals to see them.
The literature is also full of reports highlighting reviewers' potential limitations and biases. An abstract presented at the 2005 Peer Review Congress, held in Chicago in September, suggested that reviewers were less likely to reject a paper if it cited their work, although the trend was not statistically significant. Another paper at the same meeting showed that many journals lack policies on reviewer conflicts of interest; less than half of 91 biomedical journals say they have a policy at all, and only three percent say they publish conflict disclosures from peer reviewers. Still another study demonstrated that only 37% of reviewers agreed on the manuscripts that should be published.
Peer review is a "lottery to some extent," says Smith.
To read the entire article:
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/0 -
You are correct...
you have proved your point.
I am not sure it is the point you would like to prove.
However, to find the real winners I ask that you take the time to rent a movie and watch it.
The Helstrom Chronicles, produced in the early 1970's.
I believe that this movie will provide you with a very valuable insight.
When in Highschool our biology teacher arranged for the local movie theator to show this movie to all the students in our school as a "field trip" activity. So all the HS students were bussed to the movie theator during the day (for several days), and then the kids talked all their parents into seeing the movie in the evenings and on the weekend.
Truely, you and anyone else interested in what happens to this earth needs to see this movie. One of the greats...
I believe it won the Oscar for best documentary that year as well.
Perry0 -
JR, THIS is peer reviewed and real science...
At a recent event, the annual Climate Diagnostic Workshop in La Jolla, Calif., a group of experts gathered: more than 150 practicing climatologists from all over the world. From the papers delivered at the meeting - as well as from the corridor talk - it was clear that the overwhelming majority could see no increase in the average global temperature during the past 100 years. It was also clear that, while most were concerned about the possible effects of anthropogenetically introduced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, few were convinced that a sound scientific basis has been established for gauging the magnitude of those possible effects0 -
It wasn't a study........ it was 928 studies.......
Tony,
Read my posts before you comment. The 928 papers are from a scientific data base.
That is 928 studies. Every single one of the studies in the data base that talked about climate change dating back to 1993.
They were all unrelated studies. Anyone can submit a study into the data base.
928-0.
Why don't you submit a study then it would be 928-1.
Look Tony do you actually believe there is some kind of conspiracy? with 928 scientists? That has never been scienmtifically discredited by anyone? That is backed up by 5 major science foundations?
Come on!!!!!!!!!
JR
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"0 -
Agreed.
Perry was concise, spot on, and nailed the facts as well as any of the almost 300 posts here.
Thanks Perry!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86.4K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 53 Biomass
- 423 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 94 Chimneys & Flues
- 2K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.5K Gas Heating
- 101 Geothermal
- 156 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.5K Oil Heating
- 64 Pipe Deterioration
- 925 Plumbing
- 6.1K Radiant Heating
- 383 Solar
- 15K Strictly Steam
- 3.3K Thermostats and Controls
- 54 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements