Almost as believable as global warming GDG

[Bob Gutermuth]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403802,00.html

[badbullgator]

This came up on rtf a few years ago. WOW what a bunch of weirdO's they have on their website.

[2tall]

Is this where you go when you get banned from RTF?

[badbullgator]

Is this where you go when you get banned from RTF?

Well sort of rtn is kind of a flat world society...or at least has a lot of wacko's

[backpasture]

Round earth skeptics and global warming skeptics are kindred spirits.

Both share:
- An opinion that is contrary to what the majority of the scientific community believes.
- A love of conspiracy theories to support their claims.

[Bob Gutermuth]

Really? and what about those of us who know that the earth is round and think that Gore and the global warming crowd are full of fertilizer? Seems to me that there is plenty of junk science to go around, not only in the global warming camp. Not too many years back some 'scientists' were saying things like eggs and or butter are bad for you, at one time there were those who called Einstien's Theory of Relativity unbelievable. There were even those who thought man would never go to the moon. For my money global warming is still unproven, and very likely fits the bill of junk science.

BTW I am not a believer in conspiracy theories, save two that I can think of off hand, the July bomb plot against Der Fuehrer and Booth's attempt on Lincoln.

[backpasture]

...there were those who called Einstien's Theory of Relativity unbelievable. There were even those who thought man would never go to the moon.

There were even those that thought that Global Climate Change was a hoax, and 'junk science'.

Wait, there still are those folks.

(Also, folks who still don't believe the Theory of Relativity, and folks who think we never went to the moon.)

[badbullgator]

Bob I think you are preaching to the chior.

However, there are still people who do not believe the moon landing happened and relativity is still only a theory and not a law. Einstein once said in regard to that theory “all the experiments over time will never prove me right, but just one may prove me wrong” that is the cool thing about a good theory, people argue over them for decades or longer

[badbullgator]

Uh BP, I think you mean there are still skeptics the climate change is manmade. Naturally occurring climate change has taken place since the earth was formed. Man made global warming has never taken place and likely never will to an measurable extent. I always find it funny that people put so much stock in something “scientist” came to have worked out with computer models. Keep in mind these are the same “scientist” that cannot tell you what the weather is going to be tomorrow yet you trust them to be able to predict what will happen in years. Computers are good at running mathematical models but not so good when it comes to infinite variables.
Always easier to sell research and products with a good scare factor regards

[backpasture]

Man made global warming has never taken place and likely never will to an measurable extent.

Keep in mind that the majority of the scientific community doesn't agree with that.

Keep in mind these are the same “scientist” that cannot tell you what the weather is going to be tomorrow yet you trust them to be able to predict what will happen in years.

I think that you are confusing meteorologists with climatologist. Weather is not the same as climate.

Regardless, the data that is compelling isn't the models of the future, it is the data from the past, which most of the scientific community agrees states that greenhouse gases are warming the planet.

Most of the credible scientists who are considered 'skeptics' (the 400-500 that are usually cited) agree that future climate models can't be relied upon. Many of them DO agree, however, that the earth has been warming, and that greenhouse gases are contributing to that. And, of course, so does most of the rest of the scientific community.

You either believe in science, or you don't. Claiming that "scientists" (your quotes) just don't know what their talking about implies that you don't.