Australian Politics Forum - No peer-review of green house theory

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › No peer-review of green house theory

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

No peer-review of green house theory (Read 3479 times)

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: No peer-review of green house theory
Reply #15 - Mar 13^th, 2012 at 5:34am

Emma wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 12:10am:

OK ......

Proglol !! Huh

How much 'definition' do you want.?.

Keep it basic...
because OBVIOUSLY, any article/report/survey/scientific assessment/ study/?-(of which there is now a surfeit) ....that takes a position and (peer-reviewed or not) says...' global warming, resulting from , primarily, the greenhouse effect, ...' is attacked as 'fantasy'..
Sadly the nay-sayers may yet live to regret their position. But they cannot win the argument.!

It is undeniable in my view. ......I am not a scientist - I am a human being who lives close to nature. ( i am not an animal!!)
Your peer-reviewed papers mean very little in the whole.

And no doubt the view of many others reflect my own,..people who are witnessing in their lifetimes, major climactic change. !

Just lucky I guess.

Roll Eyes

What is the question or was it you just trying to tell us that because you are one with nature, you know it has changed. You dont have to be one with nature to know it has changed and you would have to be kind of special .... not to know that earth has climate cycles (up and downs).

So instead of peer-review, we should take your word for it, because you are one with nature and you are special.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: No peer-review of green house theory
Reply #16 - Mar 14^th, 2012 at 9:54am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:03pm:

[quote author=677F79650A0 link=1331284230/9#9 date=1331547854]
So they dont define the green house effect because they can't. Very strange way to win an argument about the green house effect. Matter of fact, it is the way you lose the argument and debunk nothing.

The greenhouse effect is there. It's observable, and if it didn't exist, the Earth would be much cooler than it is. I had never seen that article by Gerhardt Gerlich before, but on first scan, there is a disconnect between observable processes and the mathematics. The models are internally consistent, but not with this universe. I think the guy has an agenda.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: No peer-review of green house theory
Reply #17 - Mar 14^th, 2012 at 10:25am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Emma wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:18pm:

I should think anyone with an interest could define the greenhouse effect. Perhaps not in scientific terms, with attendant brouhaha, but in general terms, which is what is required to convince the deniers.

You would think anyone wishing to debunk someones idea of green house effect, would supply scientific evidence aka peer-reviewed material in support of what they say is 'the' greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.

Didn't I just do that in my second reply?

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: No peer-review of green house theory
Reply #18 - Mar 14^th, 2012 at 8:27pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 5:34am:

[quote 8]OK ......

It is undeniable in my view. ......I am not a scientist - I am a human being who lives close to nature. ( i am not an animal!!)
Your peer-reviewed papers mean very little in the whole.

And no doubt the view of many others reflect my own,..people who are witnessing in their lifetimes, major climactic change. !

Just lucky I guess.

Roll Eyes

What is the question or was it you just trying to tell us that because you are one with nature, you know it has changed. You dont have to be one with nature to know it has changed and you would have to be kind of special .... not to know that earth has climate cycles (up and downs).

So instead of peer-review, we should take your word for it, because you are one with nature and you are special. [/quote]

You could do a lot worse...- ( ahum... you do do a lot worse.!!)

live every day

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page