Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Michael Mills Published:

The math doesn't lie.

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • You have still missed the point that the overwhelming consensus among scientists doing actual research is that global warming is real and has a connection to human activity. There will always those who, for one reason or another, will dissent. This has occurred throughout the history of science. A few dissenters do not invalidate the vast majority of research in a field. It has nothing to do with dismissal of peer reviewed papers. And I am not into Dr. Hook, for whatever that's worth. You have a nice day also.

  • I have posted many links to peer reviewed papers that you have dismissed as easily as I dismiss yours. Moral of the story...We probably are not going to agree. And apparently you are not in to Dr. Hook. Have a lovely day.

  • When you can com up with real science that refutes global climate change , and not blogosphere trash, get back to me. You still have not documented anything. And I'm impressed that you know the words "electron flow". An ancient proverb for you and chaz: "How can one fool make another wise?" You obviously don't have a clue what it takes to get a scientific paper published. It is not making up stuff and printing in a blog.

  • What you really mean is your usual comment. You don't agree with me lock step, so you don't know anything. Read the the verse again and apply to Al Gore and the lemming patrol. Then the meaning may become clear to your superior mind. I know more about science than you think. Wanna talk about electron flow?

  • More meaningless drivel. Can't you stick to science instead of inane responses. Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't know any real science.

  • We gotta lotta little teenage blue-eyed groupies Who'll do anything we say We got a genuine Indian guru Who's teachin' us a better way We got all the friends that money can buy So we never have to be alone And we keep gettin' richer, but we can't get our picture On the cover of the Rollin' Stone ----- Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show

  • I posted a timeline in another thread that consisted oreferences to articles in various pulications, referring to the scientific thinking of the day, some of which were scientific journals and some were not. I got the following reply: Needy; The time line you put together? Exactly my point; no scientific data, mostly a series of news articles. Hardly convincing! You guys can't have it both ways.

  • The Rolling Stone article is quoting the findings, facts and figures from fine scientific journals, not producing them. Please address the content of the article rather than just your blanket putdown, as that would be much more productive and give us something to debate about (besides whether the RS is a fine scientific journal that is).

  • Methinks Mr. Fry was referring to a different thread. "The Rolling Stone".. Now there's a fine scientific journal.

  • Say what Mr. Fry?

  • I think y'all need to go stand in the corner (or hide your head in the sand, whatever) until you can speak with a civil tongue.