"He's not an expert in the field he's whining about."
Did you notice that Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman), is not exactly in the field too but he's the IPCC chairman?
"Oh and your list of "experts"?"
Of course energy companies, when attacked and demonized by the government funded scientists, have to fight back. Do you really think they would employ scientists that would oppose them?
And the one that apparently changed sides to sign the petition, John Christy may have begun to realize that the fight against AGW is no longer science but politics.
"You really should learn the real meaning of logical fallacies"
You're commenting on a statement made by the first commenter to the article, not my words.
"There isn't a single scientific body anywhere in the world that disagrees with that."
I don't know. I try not to use absolute words or statements like that but sometimes I fail. That aside, don't you think that 31000+ scientists comprise a sizable body? At least in the context of the Webster definition, (5: a group of persons or things:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body
"In peer reviewed literature"
True but the peers declined to review such pieces (maybe for deny-ability?) as:
which makes the statement, "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
The 5.5% figure is what most computer models conclude and the 'peer reviews' accept. The link explains in detail how that is wrong.
It is one of the main reasons many of us 'evil deniers' don't trust the government sponsored 'consensus'.
I too believed AGW blindly until I saw this article. That sent me on the path of rooting out other articles which helped steer my beliefs until the 'climategate' fraud at Manchester was revealed. Now I know it is a simple, yet complex fraud,(what kind of fallacy is that?) probably government sponsored.
Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....
Did you notice that Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman), is not exactly in the field too but he's the IPCC chairman?
"Oh and your list of "experts"?"
Of course energy companies, when attacked and demonized by the government funded scientists, have to fight back. Do you really think they would employ scientists that would oppose them?
And the one that apparently changed sides to sign the petition, John Christy may have begun to realize that the fight against AGW is no longer science but politics.
"You really should learn the real meaning of logical fallacies"
You're commenting on a statement made by the first commenter to the article, not my words.
"There isn't a single scientific body anywhere in the world that disagrees with that."
I don't know. I try not to use absolute words or statements like that but sometimes I fail. That aside, don't you think that 31000+ scientists comprise a sizable body? At least in the context of the Webster definition, (5: a group of persons or things:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body
"In peer reviewed literature"
True but the peers declined to review such pieces (maybe for deny-ability?) as:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which makes the statement, "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
The 5.5% figure is what most computer models conclude and the 'peer reviews' accept. The link explains in detail how that is wrong.
It is one of the main reasons many of us 'evil deniers' don't trust the government sponsored 'consensus'.
I too believed AGW blindly until I saw this article. That sent me on the path of rooting out other articles which helped steer my beliefs until the 'climategate' fraud at Manchester was revealed. Now I know it is a simple, yet complex fraud,(what kind of fallacy is that?) probably government sponsored.