Reply With Quote
His report is a complete crock of . It has absolutely no scientific merit. Its not a peer reviewed analysis. Have you read it Darrin?
Here's the EPA analyst whose report was suppressed.
His report is a complete crock of . It has absolutely no scientific merit. Its not a peer reviewed analysis. Have you read it Darrin?
Hmmm
Here's a draft. Check it out.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Word. Al Gore told me too.
Why do you believe it is a complete crock of ?
Be specific.
By the way, it's a little difficult to be peer reviewed when your boss doesn't allow peers to review it. Wouldn't you agree?
Thanks. I'll read it.
This guy has worked for EPA for 38 years. I guess we can't smear him as a "hired gun" for big oil.
Yet somehow its out.
Its contradictory. It concludes the earth is cooling yet it also concludes the earth is warming due to the sun. The basis for its conclusions consist of internet blogs and other non scientific data. Its not a good do ent in the least.
The EPA is a big organization, he's not a scientist. He's an economist.
Does a degree in physics from Cal Tech count?
The global temperature record of the last decade is not subjective, would you agree?
When you see continued rising of CO2 and a declining average temperature, you have to stop and think about it.
Context and variability. This is why people who are not scientists have a tough time with this subject. No, the temperature record is not subjective, but even if the earth is somehow cooling now then why would they conclude that it is both cooling and cite a study attributing warming to the sun? Its a grab bag of ways to try to discredit climate change theory, thats why.
Further more, the earth can still be warming and display a lower average temperature over a decade.
To make you a scientist? No. Its a great accomplishment, no doubt. But he's an economist.
Does this preclude him from being able to understand data and use rational thinking?
I get sick of this whole "he/she is not a scientist" bull . Anyone can be a scientist. Children are natural scientists. I think what you are referring to is pedigree.
What's ironic is that it was two Canadian economists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who managed to thoroughly debunk the infamous "hockey stick" graph by Mann, et. al. They showed that Mann's algorithm turned random white noise into hockey stick graphs.
Ok fair enough, but he didn't.
He didn't what?
Comparing the validity of economics and climatology, as sciences, is like trying to decide among tadpoles which are the most perfect frogs.
LOL...
I must of missed that episode. I don't remember that one.
No one was doing that, however.
From 10,000 feet up, it was pretty hard to tell.
Here's the entire report:
Suppressed Report
Good one, WH. Happy 4th.
Would Galileo buy global warming?
Skepticism is the critical tool of science
FOR 2,000 years, the scientific debate was settled. The ancient Greeks had studied the skies, and had determined by the 4th century before Christ that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The heavenly bodies rotated around the Earth in little wheels. Except for a few geocentric deniers, most scientists agreed, and in addition, the Holy Scripture said so.
They had proof. Using their calculations, they could prove where the planet and the Moon and the Sun would be at any one time.
True, these bodies did not exactly circle the Earth in concentric circles, but there was an explanation that was long and too complicated to go into here.
Then along came this troublemaker, Nicolaus Copernicus. He was a mathematician and an astronomer in Poland, and he came up with a whole new set of calculations that had the Earth rotating the Sun.
This was in the 1500s. After he died, his theory got Galileo Galilei in a whole lot of trouble.
Galileo supported Copernicus' theory, which put him at odds with his fellow scientists and the Catholic Church.
Scientists at that time had no power.
The church was another matter. It had a lot of power, and church officials at the time believed that the Earth did not move (it is in Psalms), and that to say otherwise was heresy.
For more than 15 years, Galileo fought the church. But in 1633, Galileo finally recanted and said the Earth was the center of the universe.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret and officially recognized that no, the Earth is not the center of the universe.
READ THE REST OF THIS FINE ARTICLE:
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/donsurber/200907030296
Interesting read:
Global warming "crisis" officially canceled
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
