'Nullius in verba' - doubt the consensus
Tunderbar
The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba', roughly translated as
'Take nobody's word for it', dates back to 1663, and is an expression
of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of
authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by
an appeal to facts determined by experiment.
chemist
Trouble is the RS has been bamboozled like every other "learned"
Society.
They could examine the so called experimental "proofs" that
CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas with a more critical eye than they
have done in the past.
marcodbeast
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1081b3f9-ad68-4dec...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
An excellent post. Further reading:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
marcodbeast
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:qjm3949bdq6ktcq1p...@4ax.com...
> And the fact, that many of our AGWs would bet their life on it.
>
> MUAHAHAHAHA
Of course, lying petey here can't disprove a word on their site and so is
reduced to talking trash. lol
marcodbeast
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c94c2375-4301-4c64...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Of course, lying 'chemist' here can't disprove a word on their site and so
Tunderbar
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> And the fact, that many of our AGWs would bet their life on it.
>
> MUAHAHAHAHA
Too bad they don't follow their own motto.
Tunderbar
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
They should read their own motto. But I guess one must follow the
grant money if one wants to continue doing research.
chemist
> "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
The facts that Methane does not show any warming in greenhouse gas
experiments whilst Argon does, are not lies.
In order to have the right to call me a liar you will have to do the
experiments
for yourself and see if you can prove me wrong.
I did not take the words that the various doctors and professors as
gospel
I did experiments and proved that they are wrong in their conclusions.
Ouroboros_Rex
> On Jul 31, 5:53 pm, "marcodbeast" <its@casual> wrote:
>> "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c94c2375-4301-4c64...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 31, 4:00 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6186
>>
>>> The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba', roughly translated as
>>> 'Take nobody's word for it', dates back to 1663, and is an
>>> expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the
>>> domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify
>>> all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.
>>
>> Trouble is the RS has been bamboozled like every other "learned"
>> Society.
>> They could examine the so called experimental "proofs" that
>> CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas with a more critical eye than they
>> have done in the past.
>>
>> Of course, lying 'chemist' here can't disprove a word on their site
>> and so is reduced to talking trash. lol
>
> The facts that Methane does not show any warming in greenhouse gas
> experiments whilst Argon does, are not lies.
Then you'll have a cite for that, right? lol
> In order to have the right to call me a liar you will have to do the
> experiments
> for yourself and see if you can prove me wrong.
> I did not take the words that the various doctors and professors as
> gospel
> I did experiments and proved that they are wrong in their conclusions.
You did one experiment that verified warming from CO2, then sabotaged it.
lol
Roald B. Larsen
Doubt is all right. But there is a time for doubt and a time for
taking a stand, when the doubt has been cast aside. The British Royal
Society has taken such a stand on climate change, and that stand goes
straight against 8 misleading arguments favored by the fossil funded
greenhouse gas deniers:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
CLIMATE CHANGE controversies:
a simple guide
The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of
scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better
understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
[...]
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085
***
The Royal Society has also succeeded in making ExxonMobil stop
supporting right wing lobbygroups in their furtile political fight
against solid climate science.
Tunderbar
How much research money will The Royal Society lose if they decide
that global warming has nothing to do with manmade CO2?
Roald B. Larsen
Exactly nil and nothing, and they would not even care, because it is
their interest to be honest, like real science must be to keep its
good reputation.
While the right wing neo-con lobbyists are known to be hired con men.
Whata Fool
>On 31 Jul, 17:00, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6186
>>
>> The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba', roughly translated as
>> 'Take nobody's word for it', dates back to 1663, and is an expression
>> of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of
>> authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by
>> an appeal to facts determined by experiment.
>
>Doubt is all right. But there is a time for doubt and a time for
>taking a stand, when the doubt has been cast aside. The British Royal
>Society has taken such a stand on climate change, and that stand goes
>straight against 8 misleading arguments favored by the fossil funded
>greenhouse gas deniers:
>
>http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
>
>CLIMATE CHANGE controversies:
>a simple guide
>
>The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of
>scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better
>understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
>[...]
>http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085
Isn't it great to have an organized group of people that
are willing to help the less educated and dumber people learn
the truth.
I started reading it, but can't believe the first paragraph;
"There have also been regional
changes such as periods known as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, when
grapes were grown extensively in England,
Does that mean grapes won't grow in England now? Wow, is
the climate there that much different from France a few miles away?
>and the ‘Little Ice Age’, when
the River Thames sometimes froze over.
Does that mean it was Global Climate Change, or just a shift
in the Gulf Stream?
>However, in contrast to these
climate phases, the increase of three-quarters of a degree centigrade
(0.74°C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last
century is larger than can be accounted for by natural factors alone."
Does that mean the river freezing over did so with less than
0.74 C in average global temperatures?
And is the last statement a suggestion that the MM and the LIA
occurred with less than 0.74 C global average temperature anomalies?
It appears that paper was possibly obsolete even before it
was published.