If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships? I suggest you review their position on AGW. Why? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message m... Dan Luke wrote: Not hardly, McNicoll. You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder next time, please. Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW and another standard for those that do not. I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific professional organization. You apparently think any organization that employs a scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods. You have to do better than this, McNicoll. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Dan Luke wrote:
Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW and another standard for those that do not. I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific professional organization. So none of the groups you listed have any political or government connection? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships? I suggest you review their position on AGW. Why? Because it's not what you imply it to be. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
Jessica wrote:
"Climate Scientists" = global warming believer. There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
An anonymous poster, writing as "Jessica" wrote:
[Dan] ... You apparently think any organization that employs a scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods. Huh? Nobody said anything about Kraft Foods until you hauled it into the discussion as a phony red herring. Nice try. Perhaps I can help clarify this concept. Kraft is a commercial food processor, and distributor. Kraft employs one or more scientists. Question: Is Kraft a Scientific organization? No; it is a food processor and distributor. Marshall is a Republican think tank. Marshall employs one or more scientists. Question: Is Marshall a Scientific organization? No; it is a Republican think tank. Do you see how this goes now? :-) Brian W |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Dan Luke" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote: Anyway, so where is the IEEE position? Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team? Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping. The IEEE is an engineering association. So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You specifically included: "International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences" QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group. The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group - not a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I don't? (It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like "Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the world...." This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.) Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept? I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
*It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. * You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from seriously flawed computer models. FACT Cheers |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message m... Dan Luke wrote: Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW and another standard for those that do not. I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific professional organization. So none of the groups you listed have any political or government connection? Did I say that? Irrelevant to the definition, anyway. Give it up, McNicoll.: the goalposts stay where they are. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Rutan on Global Warming
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message m... Dan Luke wrote: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships? I suggest you review their position on AGW. Why? Because it's not what you imply it to be. Naked assertion with no backup or parameters. Par for you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming The debbil made me do it | Denny | Piloting | 442 | April 5th 08 12:26 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 10:47 PM |
My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil | Skylune | Owning | 0 | October 19th 07 09:21 PM |
I have an opinion on global warming! | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 89 | April 12th 07 12:56 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: CBS Spotlights Aviation's Effect On Global Warming!!! | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 1 | August 3rd 06 07:24 PM |