Where is the better explanation of the data? I have yet to hear any scientifically valid explanation of the mean yearly temperature rise.
or the increases in early migrations of most migratory birds in North America Or the northerly increase in the range of a variety of tropical species. With a commensurate increase in the northernmost ranges for temperate climate species. There is just far too much evidence from all sorts of different streams of data that all point to the same thing, increasing mean global temperature. There as not been a valid competing theory or model so far put out by the climate deniers that offer a better explanation of the data than the current models. One citation in a peer reviewed climatology journal is all that's needed. We're waiting... BTW if you cannot produce such what are we to conclude? that the so-called skeptics (most of whom are funded by industry special interests) cannot provide a better explanation for the data than the current consensus model. So what do the climate change deniers do, they try to discredit the scientific community as a whole. In other words its better to trust the stereotype of the lone scientist who bucks the establishment. It fits within their Randian ethos. It makes more sense to trust the "little guy"the maverick scientistthan the scientific establishment. "History tells us that a lot of ground-breaking discoveries are made by mavericks who don't follow the mainstream," says Laidler. "What is often left out is that most of the mavericks are just plain wrong. They laughed at Galileo and Edison, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown and Don Knotts." On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "it makes perfect sense to me." > > No surprise there. > > > "They cannot attack the accumulated evidence," > > Making the assumption that there is accumulated evidence, which is a big > assumption. If you have a link to any evidence that is not somehow > associated with East Anglia, the UN, or NASA, post a link. > > > " so rather than provide a better explanation for the entire body of data > they hope to succeed by using sleazy political tactics." > > A better explanation was provided. The data is fraudulent. No need for > sleazy political tactics. > > > "Sounds typical for the special interests supporting the climate > change deniers." > > It seems that most of the special interest groups in the climate change > arena are on the side of global warming. The "Green" technology companies, > tree huggers, ex-hippy, anti-capitalists, etc. These are the ones who > resorted to sleazy politics. For example: researchers who were not part of > the cult have been black-listed. Their papers have been refused > publications. > > Time for Al Gore to return the Nobel. The party is over. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312110 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
