...and of course, scientific papers are less histrionic than most other types of writing. This is well known. It is convention. And, in this case, I wasn’t sure that everyone would be able to open a pdf file let alone want to read the original research, so I only linked directly to the original html article, giving others the option to go to the scientific paper from there or not.
Again, for those who couldn't find the link, here it is again: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf On Nov 21, 11:41 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “Still, you didn't link to a science paper, you linked to a paper > written by a journalist who may, or may not, have read a scientific > paper. More than likely, the source paper is less histrionic.” – T. > > As I said in my original post, "...but the study (link is at end of > article) is authored mostly by scientists from American universities > and James Hansen from the Goddard Inst. For Sapce Studies in NY." > > Since you (Taylor) apparently couldn’t find the hyperlink at the > bottom of the Russia Today webpage, here it is > again.http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf > > On Nov 21, 10:51 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<I wonder how these scientists could be so far off the mark > > then.....>> > > > Projecting a trendline into the future is a strong human tendency and > > scientists have been guilty of it as much as anybody. Such a > > trendline is a "model", but a simplistic one, because it ignores > > mechanisms which often rise to counter the trend. > > > Still, you didn't link to a science paper, you linked to a paper > > written by a journalist who may, or may not, have read a scientific > > paper. More than likely, the source paper is less histrionic. > > > On Nov 21, 12:30 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "Unlikely. ..." - T > > > > I wonder how these scientists could be so far off the mark then..... > > > > On Nov 21, 10:28 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<30 years till the end of the planet to which humans are adapted.>> > > > > > Unlikely. Worse case scenario is probably an equilibrium level of > > > > human population. As these catastrophes kill of humans, there will be > > > > an inescapable reduction in CO2 emissions. > > > > > However, in the next 10 years, we will develop technology that will > > > > remove the CO2 from the atmosphere. Lots of ideas on the best way to > > > > do this have been popping up in the last year or so.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
