And I hope that "in the face of all comers" didn't sound too, you know. Japanese or whatever.

yeah sure buddy

i'll be your olsen

How about as in "twins?"

quote:

---

why are you trying to equate politics with science? oh right.

---

poor confusedkev. i'm merely pointing out that your "we don't know enough to warrant taking intervening steps" attitude, in the face of the massive body of evidence, on global warming flies in the face of your cavalier "we have to invade iraq" attitude, in the face of, at best sketchy evidence about WMDs there. the issue of global warming and the threat posed by iraq both presented a threat that contained an element of the unknown and, ultimately, the decision about whether or not to intervene in each circumstance required and requires the same process of cost/benefit/risk analysis.

that you repeatedly fail to see this is astounding- although hardly surprising.

quote:

---

i cant think of any scientists that refute the law of gravity.

---

another good one, tangentialkev. global warming isn't a law. it's a theory- and a widely accepted one. kinda like how there are still plenty of scientists who believe that it's only a "theory" that hiv inevitably leads to aids. is that "theory" a popularity contest, too? if so, would you likewise argue that it's irrational for people to take steps to protect themselves from an "unproven" risk?

sure thing, sir 21245 posts.

It's just the freakin' computer - true

^what do you mean?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

LOL kev shot himself on the foot again:

surely if global warming is actually happening then it should not be a problem for scientists to show a warming trend. why should a skeptic have to prove that the earth is not warming? thats just silly.


--londonskew

And then he posts a link with this statement:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.

-- Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
























Kev even your own favorite scientist from MIT says there is a warming trend in temperature and an increase in CO2. He's just saying the effects of it should be challenged by the scientific method.





















Kevy I think you're better off going to a Big-oil-funded scientist. It's safer for you there

i think u have to read his entire article to grasp what he is saying. which is basically: dont get hysterical over climate change claims.

is this what all the doomsday prophets are up in arms about?

a rise 0.7 degrees celcius over the past 100 years?

i think u have to read his entire article to grasp what he is saying. which is basically: dont get hysterical over climate change claims

Yeah and he also said there is CO2 rising and temperature rising which is scientific proof you were doubting


















Don't get hysterical and deny global warming. It's here kevy