Quote:
|
Originally Posted by XabbaRus
Nice try subman, just did some research on the Oregon Petition using OMG Wikipedia to get some quick info and some links (which of course discredits everything I'm going to write here in your view) and basically it is old news and although maybe not discredited fullstop are inconsitencies ie duplicate names etc, business as signatories. Also following on the on the author and what he is affilitated with ie the discovery Institute leads me to take the petition with a grain of salt.
Seems to be a case of having a theory and fitting the facts to prove it instead of looking at the facts and coming up with a theory to explain the facts.
|
Lets see, you are discrediting 31K signatures vs a few? So what if a few were duplicated? 31K people of stature, 9,000 with PhD's mind you, don't sign something like this without it being completely accurate. Maybe you missed this part:
Quote:
“Not a single person, in email and so forth—including people who wrote me email saying I was crazy—has ever contested one of the facts in this paper,” said Robinson. “And I don’t think they can, because we’re very good at out jobs, we’re excellent scientists, and we have been reviewed carefully by brilliant people, and we reference every fact in the literature.”
Robinson added that no scientific paper he’s written has been retracted in the last 20 years.
|
And on top of all this, there are some other dramatic consequences of the Kyoto protocol as well, but that is best left to another thread.
And by the way, why wouldn't the discovery institute come to him if he can help them find what they are looking for? Duh!!! That type of argument means you can raise that doubt against everything!
One more thing to add to the fire - Global Warming is 'not a theory' since it has been debunked. It can't stand up to scrutiny.
Here is another reason why its BS:
Quote:
|
“That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,” said Robinson. “In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.”
|
I like how we have conversations around here where you say everything in this article is BUNK becuase some guy worked on a project for some other guy? Nice try.
-S
PS. Just a clue - he never said he had a theory. His simply discredited the GW theory since its not based on Science. This is how real science works. Excuse me, i should have called GW a hypothesis since it was never proven with fact.