>>Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites?
>>I've read a lot of them.
Why have you felt the need to read them?
You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike yourself are in a
position to take or prevent action, did not need to.
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
>> Oh,
when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You
suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for
yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the
champagne. There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best
news in history, ever, and you're just sour about it! You're
not suggesting we ought to read about the science and think
for ourselves are you?! What a drag!
Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC
cites? I've read a lot of them.
Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by
climate change acceptors as a consensus about the catastrophic
effect global warming will have when it isn't one?
Show me a quote where is it presented that way. The actual
statement is 97% of climate scientists believe that the Earth is
getting hotter and it's due to burning fossil fuel.
Do they even
know that the figure represents just those scientist who agree
climate change is happening? Do they know it doesn't reflect
the amount of scientists who think the change is caused by
humans? They certainly don't know that less than 50% of
scientists think the effect of warming would be catastrophic
otherwise that figure would enter into their discourse, or
would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a bit silent about
what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is
overwhelming. A little white lie and so on, an economy with
the truth etc.
No one has said it would be catastrophic, as in threaten extinction
of humans. They have said it will be very economically and socially
disruptive and produce major changes in agriculture and in natural
food and water sources.
In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit.
Listening to what the scientists actually have to say is
exactly what people should do, even congressmen, rather than
close ones ears to everything except easily digestible and
neatly misrepresentable figures.
So why don't you listen?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
