PPRuNe Forums

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th Oct 2006, 20:22   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Thank you for the nature article. It was, it would seem, actually a letter to which Shaviv and Veizer provided a response
I guess this is for me as I'm the only person to cite a Nature Article. Took me some time to work out what you were going on about, and all I can say is your hole is being dug deeper.

The web page you cite Response of Shaviv and Veizer (with our comments) is not a response to anything I have cited. It is a response to Speculation on the influence of galactic cosmic rays on climate is scientifically untenable which is found here. If you had read the article I did actually cite, and read the response you cited, you would have realised that.

The devil in all this scientific stuff is in the detail. Neglect the detail and you will probably get found out, as you have yourself discovered.

I do like it when scientists get into bun fights. The stuff debunking your experts is pretty strong for scientists, they don't usually get that emotional.
slim_slag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Oct 2006, 22:28   #22 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,674
Accepted, my error, however, it would seem, still, to support the case that any anti-global warming paper is attacked, instantly, without waiting for a peer review.

The original paper quoted and the authors were attacked, individually, ethically and professionally.

The second Danish paper and the authors have been attacked in the same manner.

The professor pointing out the link has been attacked in the same manner.

I point out that the US Senate notices a trend of ad hominem attacks and a trend of anti-global warming articles trying to equate them to anti-holocaust articles etc, the result is an attack on the oil companies, neocons, Christian organisations and the Republican party.

And they say irony is dead....

Meanwhile, slim-slag throws in a great trick, (I almost missed it. )
You seriously think the oil companies and neocons would ignore your Professor if he had anything? They'd be throwing so much money at him to disprove the CO2 theory that he wouldn't be able to spend it.
So, if he doesn't get funded by the oil companies, he is obvious incompetent. But if he does accept funding, obviously he would be a pawn of the oil companies? Good trick .

As to the tactics of those who support the current global warming position, I offer a quote from their own ranks...

"In 1989, global-warming enthusiast Stephen Schneider, one of the anti-Lomborg attackers in Scientific American, confessed "We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Last edited by ORAC; 16th Oct 2006 at 22:49.
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 00:28.

1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1