Embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer

[tropical]

#1:
"... document that stated that humans were not responsible for climate change"

#2:
"The expected reorganization of the world economy to fit the green template vanished ..."

:yinyang:

how convenient for many, those renowed supposed "not responsibility"


a rise is stil confirmed:

from post #2:
"The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860"

 

[tropical]

Re: Embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer

plan B:
staying put fueling carbs without additional filtering and cutting/firing forests,
at least until the ocean waters rised over the ground constructions ...

 

[DrRugby]

Re: Embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer

Too bad the press is so in the hip pocket of the socialist revolution that they will never follow up on this like they should.
The simple truth is that global warming AND cooling are normal and REQUIRED for the survival of the earth as we know it.
A TRULY INCONVEINENT TRUTH:
16,000 years ago, what would the Sahara Desert have looked like?

............................. a tropical rain forest!

 

[tropical]

Re: Embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer

#6: "global warming AND cooling are normal and REQUIRED for the survival of the earth"


survival of the Earth maybe, not the HUMANS on Earth ...

and surely not the Earth "as we know it".


The Earth balanced natural processes and seasons, as we are used to know,
are increasingly devastated, contaminated and after 200 years of heavy global human shaping,
conducted to an hardly reversible process of massive Earth natural (as we used to know) life forms extintion.

Sorry, but I like more a forest shadow than the skyscrapers one.

 

[tropical]

Re: Embarrassing revelation from Ben Santer

#9: ...

Obviously a creation with a "pedia" into its name,
as enc-...-pedia,
or Wiki-pedia
implicit an scientificaly 100% comproved material which could be reached by the web surfers,
but because of the note "correct if wrong" policy,
everybody could correct it by arguments, as stated in #9:
"Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through discussion until a consensus is found."

Because of the above postulation,
when arguments are controversial, especialy not be 100% comproved,
such site experienced the:
#9:
"are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s principle of “neutral point of view”.

___


Other sites, where every post is a personal point of view of the posters (as disclaimed), more or less comproved by "studies",
an "neutral point of view" is in fact an "non point of view".

So there, a comment point of view is always an private point of view.
It could be shared and taken, or dismissed and throwed - the principle of logic driven human conversation.