Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus

whats gibberish!!

You're worthless.

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For the record my thread title comes right from the title of the blog I got the story off.

It is not MY interpretation.

OK, its not your interpretation, but that hasn't stopped you from arguing it here. Since you are the one espousing the view, you get the criticism.

How about responding to the criticism?

They can't. It's not part of their job description.

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus

whats gibberish!!

You're worthless.

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For the record my thread title comes right from the title of the blog I got the story off.

It is not MY interpretation.

OK, its not your interpretation, but that hasn't stopped you from arguing it here. Since you are the one espousing the view, you get the criticism.

How about responding to the criticism?

They can't. It's not part of their job description.

Oh that's rich.

 

[IGBT]

..eco-theists are frothing at the mouth to get their emission credit racket going. When Mrs.Bill Clinton said it takes a village she wasen't kidding. She was talking about a 1700's era village where all life centers around the village and no body leaves byond the distance a bycicle or walking will bring you.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Comanche
When you all talk about concensus, you need to be living in the time of Copernicus. Do you realize what you all sound like.

If you want to discuss the merits of GW, you need to start citing facts and argueing those points. Consensus in science is mute. If you remember in Copernicus day, pretty much the whole world was against him. It wasn't until after he died that things really came out.

As far as GW is concerned, for every fact you give me saying GW is real, I can refute that with another study saying just the opposite.

And onother thing. This thing about biased reports is bogus also. It is still science, it may be false, as is most reporting on GW, but it is still science. One has to dig into the articles to get to the truth. You don't attact the person writing the article, you attact the article itself and show where the falacies are.

Enough said

BS!

Yup, its a fact!