--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > John: > > > > > > I am always amazed at how unhappy True Believers in global warming, such > > > as yourself, are when confronted with evidence, suggestions, or proposals > > > that the global warming hypothesis is false. > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with your argument, Shremp, is that the only 'evidence' you've > > provided has come from various dubious, crackpot, dishonest and/or funded > > shills for Big Energy. > > > > That simply isn't true. > > But even if it were, it is the facts that would be important, regardless of > who financed the studies or research. > > But you seem to be relying on the principle: he who pays the piper calls the > tune. Well, if that's the case, then it would be important to see who funds > the studies and research that comes out with the global warming alarmism. > > And it's the government! Just the other day there was a link on the > DrudgeReport that over $77 billion, I think it was, has been spent by the > government on global warming research. > > Now, you aren't going to try and convince me that the Government of the USA > is not biased, are you? > > > > > > > The overwhelming consensus in the world-wide scientific community that > > global warming is real, that it is very much being created by humans and > > that it poses great risks for humanity is practically indisputable. > > > > There is NOT overwhelming consensus. If anything, the research is now > showing that there is ZERO evidence to be alarmed. > > > > > > The majority of what you have cited in the past has been extensively > > debunked by reputable researchers - and doesn't amount to a hill of beans > > in comparison to the, at this point, far more than obvious scientific > > reality. > > > > simply not true. > > But even if it was, why wouldn't you be hoping that that it wasn't true? Why > are you so keen to believe in something that promises to kill millions of > people? You should be hoping against hope that you are wrong. > > It is, simply, irrational. > > > > > > You've kind of relegated yourself to the minority fringe, Shremp - which is > > nothing surprising... or new. > > > > Actually, polls on global warming beliefs show that I am not...but you are. > see: > > http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/breaking-europe-belief-in-global.html > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag1_0hhLg_2E > > http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=333327577562530&secure=1&show=1&rss=1 > > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104619 >
The legitimacy of scientific research isn't a matter of popular opinion, Shremp. Vast majorities used to believe that the sun and the stars revolved around the earth - or that the earth was flat. The scientific method isn't governed by, nor does it depend on, public debate. It works within it's own long established and well tested and accepted parameters. Your ideologically vested and emotionally based denials about global warming are interesting in terms of how YOU perceive reality, but they carry no weight in the vast, reputably legitimized global scientific community.
