Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS

This is a discussion on Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS ; http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

  1. Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!


  2. Re: Global warming says Wisconsin professor a hoax!

    In article <1187702610.021345.32740@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.co m>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
    > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253
    >


  3. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253


    Aw, Bob! You've been doing so well for some time now.

    I thought you'd cured yourself of this kind of stuff...

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  4. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253

    >
    > Aw, Bob! You've been doing so well for some time now.
    >
    > I thought you'd cured yourself of this kind of stuff...'


    This bit made me laugh

    "However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that
    climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not
    reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has
    compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are
    located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached
    to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed.""



  5. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 21, 9:23 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253


    American corporate marketing has gone too far. Web sites are popping
    up claiming to be "Junk Science whistle blowers" but these propaganda
    sites are actually funded from the advertising budgets of oil
    companies (like ExxonMobil, Imperial Oil, etc.) and tobacco companies
    (like Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson, etc.) with the intention of
    convincing ordinary people to doubt science and then believe absurd
    non-sense.

    As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt
    is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body
    of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the
    means of establishing a controversy." Both industries also sought to
    distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression
    that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary
    citizens: the "grassroots".

    These denial web sites tend to use the phrase "junk science" when
    referring "to peer-reviewed scientific research" and "sound science"
    when referring to "wishful thinking". To make matters worse, these
    companies fund many conservative think tanks making sure they get the
    academic opinions they desire (I always wondered why North America was
    drifting away from the political center). These denial sites and think
    tank people reference each other during debates which later filter
    down to newspapers or other web sites. Many employ scientists who
    "have not published any peer-reviewed material for more than 10 years"
    or "are working outside their area of expertise". For more information
    on this scam, please see pages 31-35 of the 2006-2007 book "Heat" by
    George Monbiot (with research by Dr. Mathew Prescott) or visit one of
    these links:

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
    http://www.ExxonSecrets.org
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hicalliving.g2

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


  6. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:00:39 -0700, Neil Rieck
    wrote:

    > American corporate marketing has gone too far. Web sites are popping
    > up claiming to be "Junk Science whistle blowers" but these propaganda


    Neil, no insult intended, but I think it would behoove you to understand
    the underlying science. Appealing to conspiracy theories, whilst clever,
    does nothing to improve the understanding of the underlying, basic
    scientific
    discussion.

    Ironically, the companies that have been singled out as villains in this
    comedy are the ones who will likely profit the most from it. For example,
    the energy cost to produce a quantity of ethanol (from corn, sawgrass,
    etc.)
    exceeds the amount of energy that can be derived from the ethanol.

    AGM is a hoax. I suspect most scientists took the early reports as fact,
    as
    they were published in various journals, but as time passes, I believe that
    you will find the tide turning overwhelmingly in the other direction. I
    certainly made an about face.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  7. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 21, 8:27 pm, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:00:39 -0700, Neil Rieck
    > wrote:


    > Neil, no insult intended, but I think it would behoove you to understand
    > the underlying science. Appealing to conspiracy theories, whilst clever,
    > does nothing to improve the understanding of the underlying, basic
    > scientific discussion.


    When there has been documented proof that people in the White House
    are editing scientific publications, and that some of these people are
    associated with "big oil", then I suspect you are just being
    dismissive with your flippant remark about conspiracy theories.

    >
    > Ironically, the companies that have been singled out as villains in this
    > comedy are the ones who will likely profit the most from it. For example,
    > the energy cost to produce a quantity of ethanol (from corn, sawgrass,
    > etc.) exceeds the amount of energy that can be derived from the ethanol.
    >

    No surprise there...
    >
    > AGM is a hoax. I suspect most scientists took the early reports as fact,
    > as they were published in various journals, but as time passes, I believe
    > that you will find the tide turning overwhelmingly in the other direction.
    > I certainly made an about face.
    >


    If AGM means Anti Gravity Machine then I agree with you. But I wonder
    if this could be a typo on your part?

    >


    You crack me up. We're talking about global warming but you prefer to
    confuse the issue by bringing up alternate distractions like ethanol.
    (I agree with you by the way)

    As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    activities are contributing to it, then I tend to think that global
    warming is a fact and that this mind-set hasn't yet rippled through
    the remainder of society. (It sure took a long time for people to stop
    ridiculing "geological uplift" and "continental drift"; I think we had
    to wait for the Naysayers to die off before we had a consensus)

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/





  8. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 21, 4:16 pm, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    > ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253

    >
    > Aw, Bob! You've been doing so well for some time now.
    >
    > I thought you'd cured yourself of this kind of stuff...
    >
    > David J Dachtera
    > dba DJE Systemshttp://www.djesys.com/
    >


    I should have realized that Bob was behind this. I suspect he gets
    some sort of perverse pleasure throwing pebbles at our windows.

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


  9. Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    > believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    > this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    > way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    > the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    > disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    > climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's


    The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    orthodoxy.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  10. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Aug 21, 11:25 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    >
    > > As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    > > believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    > > this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    > > way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    > > the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    > > disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    > > climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's

    >
    > The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    > orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    > orthodoxy.
    >
    > Ron Johnson, Jr.
    > Jefferson LA USA
    >


    There is a "burdon of proof" that is placed upon each author (not the
    target audience). It doesn't matter if you are publishing science or
    religion, peer-review is used to filter much of noise created by
    authors working outside of the audience in question.

    If you don't believe me just try to get something published in one of
    the catholic journals of our time. (I'm not just picking on catholics
    here; all religions will peer-review the material to make sure it
    agrees with their current body of knowledge). The same is true of the
    sciences.

    NSR


  11. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    On 08/21/07 22:48, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 21, 11:25 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>> believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >>> this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>> way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>> the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>> disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>> climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's

    >> The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >> orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >> orthodoxy.
    >>

    >
    > There is a "burdon of proof" that is placed upon each author (not the
    > target audience). It doesn't matter if you are publishing science or
    > religion, peer-review is used to filter much of noise created by
    > authors working outside of the audience in question.


    You are correct. I fully agree that PR *is* a necessary buffer
    against sloppiness, stupidity and crackpotism.

    But it is only one step from that to dogmatic refusal to listen to
    different ideas.

    > If you don't believe me just try to get something published in one of
    > the catholic journals of our time. (I'm not just picking on catholics
    > here; all religions will peer-review the material to make sure it
    > agrees with their current body of knowledge). The same is true of the
    > sciences.


    It's interesting that you use dogmatic religion as an example of
    what PR scientific journals are supposed to do. Interesting and
    troubling.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  12. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Aug 22, 1:04 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 08/21/07 22:48, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >

    [...snip...]
    >
    > It's interesting that you use dogmatic religion as an example of
    > what PR scientific journals are supposed to do. Interesting and
    > troubling.
    >


    Perhaps it was a poor choice of words while typing at midnight. So let
    me expand my point of view:

    My cousin is a Lutheran minister with more formal education than 10 of
    us. He's a real nice guy but is starting to see the world "through a
    glass darkly" (one view: religion). One of the things he always brings
    up is the attack on the church by science. I don't see it but he does.
    He also likes to bring up all the border issues between science and
    relgion like evolution, stem cell research, big bang theory (which
    always involves the age of the universe), etc. while longing for the
    days when the church had more control of all education. What he sees
    as an attack on religion is just the pressure on his culture coming
    from the rational side of society. He doesn't accept the fact that
    when Christian relgion has more control over our society then the door
    is opened a crack for all the other religions (for example, In Ontario
    Canada the Muslim community is trying to get sharia law made legal;
    The governement of Austrailia just refused this outright)

    But back to my original point about dogma. Science relies on
    experiments to sort out what is true from false. Sometimes science
    will publish something false, but a future experiment will set the
    records straight. But here's the catch: science will never be able to
    disprove certain things like the existance of God so the relgious
    people really have nothing to worry about on this point.

    On the flip side, there are no experiements to prove or disprove the
    religious idea just published. All relgious "proofs" rely on:

    1) more-ancient writings when talking about the bible

    2) the writings of a small group of scientists (usually not peer
    reviewed) (usually working outside of their area of expertise)

    3) complete fiction (like the lie that Darwin recanted on his death-
    bed)

    But in both cases (science or religion or whatever) there are groups
    of people peer-reviewing material to throttle what ideas make it into
    large circulation publications.

    NSR



  13. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    On 08/22/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 1:04 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 08/21/07 22:48, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>

    > [...snip...]
    >> It's interesting that you use dogmatic religion as an example of
    >> what PR scientific journals are supposed to do. Interesting and
    >> troubling.
    >>

    >
    > Perhaps it was a poor choice of words while typing at midnight. So let
    > me expand my point of view:
    >
    > My cousin is a Lutheran minister with more formal education than 10 of
    > us. He's a real nice guy but is starting to see the world "through a
    > glass darkly" (one view: religion). One of the things he always brings
    > up is the attack on the church by science. I don't see it but he does.
    > He also likes to bring up all the border issues between science and
    > relgion like evolution, stem cell research, big bang theory (which
    > always involves the age of the universe), etc. while longing for the
    > days when the church had more control of all education. What he sees
    > as an attack on religion is just the pressure on his culture coming
    > from the rational side of society. He doesn't accept the fact that
    > when Christian relgion has more control over our society then the door
    > is opened a crack for all the other religions (for example, In Ontario
    > Canada the Muslim community is trying to get sharia law made legal;
    > The governement of Austrailia just refused this outright)


    We agree on this.

    > But back to my original point about dogma. Science relies on
    > experiments to sort out what is true from false. Sometimes science
    > will publish something false, but a future experiment will set the
    > records straight. But here's the catch: science will never be able to
    > disprove certain things like the existance of God so the relgious
    > people really have nothing to worry about on this point.
    >
    > On the flip side, there are no experiements to prove or disprove the
    > religious idea just published. All relgious "proofs" rely on:


    And, until Evolutionary Biology, there was no way the fossil record
    could *prove* evolution via repeatable experimentation. Same with
    Astronomy and the Big Bang. (Yes, I do think think that that both
    happened/are happening.)

    Similarly, how do you prove Anthropogenic Global Climate Change via
    repeatable experimentation?

    You can't. All you can do is, like a policeman, collect "evidence"
    and try to fit a theory to it. And if your data is (a) bad
    (collected from ocean surface water or concrete/asphalt heat sinks)
    or (b) spotty (not enough data collection points in the oceans) or
    (c) not going back far enough or (d) your model is flawed, then your
    conclusion is ergo suspect.

    > 1) more-ancient writings when talking about the bible
    >
    > 2) the writings of a small group of scientists (usually not peer
    > reviewed) (usually working outside of their area of expertise)


    Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    > 3) complete fiction (like the lie that Darwin recanted on his death-
    > bed)
    >
    > But in both cases (science or religion or whatever) there are groups
    > of people peer-reviewing material to throttle what ideas make it into
    > large circulation publications.


    "Throttle" is another troubling double-meaning word you use.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  14. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >[snip]
    >>
    >> As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >> believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >> this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >> way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >> the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >> disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >> climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's

    >
    >The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >orthodoxy.
    >

    Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was worrying about
    an imminent ice age. Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the *perfect*
    guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and only
    changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >--
    >Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >Jefferson LA USA
    >
    >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


  15. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >>On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>[snip]
    >>
    >>>As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >>>this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's

    >>
    >>The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>orthodoxy.
    >>

    >
    > Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was worrying about
    > an imminent ice age.


    This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of climate
    scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".

    "Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something entirely
    different in science than it does in a religious context.


    Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    > relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the *perfect*
    > guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and only
    > changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    > position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >
    >
    >>--
    >>Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>Jefferson LA USA
    >>
    >>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!



    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  16. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article , John Santos writes:
    >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >> In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >>
    >>>On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>>[snip]
    >>>
    >>>>As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>>believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >>>>this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>>way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>>the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>>disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>>climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    >>>
    >>>The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>>orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>>orthodoxy.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was worrying about
    >> an imminent ice age.

    >
    >This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of climate
    >scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".
    >

    The prevailing opinion at that time was that the average interglacial lasted
    about 11000 years and since the start of the current interglacial was 11500
    years ago we were rapidly approaching the onset of a new ice age.

    Later evidence from ice cores showed that interglacials could last much longer
    and it has been argued that the current interglacial may be more analagous to
    a previous one which lasted around 30000 years.

    see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...iceage_01.shtm

    http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...rs/iceage.html

    and

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174246/

    So yes I think it is fair to say that the orthodoxy in the 1970s was that
    the next ice age was due.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >"Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something entirely
    >different in science than it does in a religious context.
    >
    >
    > Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    >> relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the *perfect*
    >> guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and only
    >> changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    >> position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >>
    >> David Webb
    >> Security team leader
    >> CCSS
    >> Middlesex University
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>--
    >>>Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>>Jefferson LA USA
    >>>
    >>>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

    >
    >
    >--
    >John Santos
    >Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >781-861-0670 ext 539


  17. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    Ron Johnson wrote:

    > Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.


    Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.
    --
    Cheers, Bob

  18. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    Bob Willard wrote:

    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > > Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.


    Aha! Peer Review in operation :-)

    --
    Cheers - Dave

  19. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57253
    >

    I'm not known to be the worlds greatest defender of Boob's ideas, but on
    this subject he may have a valid point.

    The world is warming up, no doubt, easy to measure. But is it due to
    human activities, carbon dioxide etc. ? The discussions on this subject
    have become rather hysterical, to say you don't agree with 95% of the
    scientists who agree it is due to human activities is not easy.

    However.......

    There is the story that the whole carbon dioxide theory was started by
    British 'scientists' working for Mrs. Thatcher. She wanted to build
    nuclear power stations, and needed arguments to move away from fossil
    fuel burning power stations.

    When the Vikings settled on Greenland around the year 800, that island
    was at least several degrees warmer than it is today. There were large
    trees growing instead of the small ones we see today.

    At the same time wine was produced much further North in Europe than
    today, also a sign that Europe was much warmer at the time.

    There are geologists who also claim that the carbon dioxide theory is
    bogus, and that the present warming up is a quite normal natural thing.
    Geologists of course are used to look at much longer periods in time
    than just the last 100 years or so.

    So yes, there are respectable scientists who do not believe the present
    theories on the cause of global warming. However in the present
    situation it is hardly possible to have a meaningful discussion on this
    subject.





  20. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming

    In article , Bob Willard writes:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> Einstein was a Mathmetician, not a Physicist.

    >
    > Albert Einstein was both. In 1896, he entered the Swiss
    > Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a
    > teacher in physics and mathematics. He was a Professor of
    > Theoretical Physics at Prague, and he was (later) a
    > Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. And, of
    > course, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.


    Being a physicist without being a mathmetician is like being a
    plumber without a crack.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast