A handful of names. These are preeminant scientists in their fields. Fields like astrophysics, ecology, geography, atmospheric science...:
Antonino Zichichi
Chris de Freitas
Claude Allègre
Craig D. Idso
David Deming
David Douglass
David Legates
Don Easterbrook
Fred Singer
George Kukla
George V. Chilingar
Hendrik Tennekes
Henrik Svensmark
Ian Clark
Ian Plimer
Jan Veizer
John Christy
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Marcel Leroux
Nir Shaviv
Patrick Michaels
Petr Chylek
Philip Stott
Reid Bryson
Richard Lindzen
Robert C. Balling, Jr.
Robert M Carter
Roy Spencer
Sallie Baliunas
Sherwood Idso
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson
Timothy F Ball
Vincent R Gray
William Gray
William Kininmonth
William R. Cotton
Willie Soon
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005
Posts: 31571
Loc: North-Central coast of California
Offline
A much better way to decide, I think, than listing names, is to read what the scientists write. I know that Alyssa does that and that her opinion differs from mine (and I also do that), but there really probably is not a better way.
It's hard. It's hard to track through the financial interests of the entities presenting the research, and back to who funds them (like maybe oil interests, or maybe companies heavily vested in eco-business), but how else can we decide?
steve strom Webboard User Reg: 03-17-2006
Posts: 4203
Loc:
Offline
Absolutely. The facts mamm, nothing but the facts. And it is difficult with the financial interests. Tax dollars bribing innocent scientists to falsify computer model conclusions to further a socialist agenda. Who can you trust?
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005
Posts: 31571
Loc: North-Central coast of California
Offline
It's very difficult to weed out socialist agenda and oil interests, and the dillions of lesser but still substantial financial interests. But if we do not, then we have learned zero, except what a particular interest wanted us to read.
It's not even easy to find research that doesn't blatantly align itself with a political statement!
That research, and I really and truly don't care which "side" it's shilling for, is off the table for me.
Lynne Barrows Webboard User Reg: 09-22-2007
Posts: 2531
Loc: S. Florida
Offline
Here's an overview (simplistic) of what's happening that seems to stick to the facts: Pew Center Report
I guess that thing that puzzles me is that, even if you (not referring to 'you' in particular, Steve) don't think that man is the 'cause' of global warming, why would you not want to do whatever you could not to contribute to it? (let me see if I can throw in a few more double negatives, just to really be confusing )
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Re: More conclusive evidence of Global Warming
Top
)
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
