Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Pseudoscience
 MMGW DEBUNKED!!!
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

thecatman
BANNED

2 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  11:56:25  Show Profile Send thecatman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.



Man made global warming is a scam to tax.

Man made global warming consensus is debunked.

Unless, of course we choose not to count the work of scientists that participated in the IPPC report.


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  12:04:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  12:09:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by thecatman

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.



Man made global warming is a scam to tax.

Man made global warming consensus is debunked.

Unless, of course we choose not to count the work of scientists that participated in the IPPC report.


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.



My personal favorite:

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 12/20/2007 12:35:07
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  12:34:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by thecatman

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.



Man made global warming is a scam to tax.

Man made global warming consensus is debunked.

Unless, of course we choose not to count the work of scientists that participated in the IPPC report.


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.




Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."


Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”


Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.


USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  12:39:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Jerome?

My thoughts exactly!
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  12:49:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

My personal favorite:

[i]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling...
Hmmm. Interesting. Seems like Khandekar is almost certainly on the take from Exxon. Nice work, if you can get it!
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:09:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by marfknox

Jerome?

My thoughts exactly!



Jerome? What about the over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries who recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming? These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

You are not disturbed when IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, has his comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft)ignored?

This is not an acceptable scientific review process.


Better yet you are not concerned when the scientific majority is silenced?



The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” )Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article:

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:23:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by Bill scott

My personal favorite:

[i]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling...
Hmmm. Interesting. Seems like Khandekar is almost certainly on the take from Exxon. Nice work, if you can get it!



So now all 400+ dissidents, who come from all over the globe, who most at one time indorsed MMGW, have been paid by oil money to reverse their conclusion? How can we ever trust scientists again?

And I would be very surprised if he were pulling in $6k/minute, if this is all about getting paid. As if the 215 scientists that signed the IPCC UN decree calling for sharp CO2 cuts have to work part time jobs to make ends meet.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

thecatman
BANNED

2 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:25:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send thecatman a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by Bill scott

My personal favorite:

[i]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling...
Hmmm. Interesting. Seems like Khandekar is almost certainly on the take from Exxon. Nice work, if you can get it!



Nothing in your link presents that this climate scientist has any dealings with Exxon.

You sir are dishonest.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:34:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by thecatman

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"



This came out in August foretelling of the senate report to come and what may be expected: <http://tinyurl.com/2xrttv>



New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears August 20, 2007

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

<mailto:Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov>

<mailto:Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov> – 4:44 PM ET Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.”

The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.





Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop'

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes:


2) Belgian weather institute's (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming:


3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age.


4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming:


5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth's climate -


6) New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle:


7) Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY -


8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian's 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:49:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

What about the over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries who recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming? These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And when the consensus becomes "these objections are significant," everyone will take notice.
You are not disturbed when IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, has his comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft)ignored?

This is not an acceptable scientific review process.
Who said that the IPCC held a scientific review process? The IPCC's job is to report on the science, not to do the science.
Better yet you are not concerned when the scientific majority is silenced?
Majority? 400 vs. 2800?
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
The Summary for Policymakers was but one of four parts of the entire IPCC report.
The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny.
Did someone claim that?
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.
It only takes one person to discover an already-existing consensus. Nobody votes on a consensus.

Stick to the science, Bill. Ignore the propaganda, because it is transparently bad.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:49:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by thecatman

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by Bill scott

My personal favorite:

[i]Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling...
Hmmm. Interesting. Seems like Khandekar is almost certainly on the take from Exxon. Nice work, if you can get it!



Nothing in your link presents that this climate scientist has any dealings with Exxon.

You sir are dishonest.




I sense that this "consensus" is falling apart at the seams: http://tinyurl.com/399ggh



"EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic"

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:58:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

I sense that this "consensus" is falling apart at the seams: http://tinyurl.com/399ggh

"EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic"
So Eckhart is an idiot. How does that change the scientific consensus, Bill?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  13:59:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by thecatman
Nothing in your link presents that this climate scientist has any dealings with Exxon.

You sir are dishonest.
No, you're just lazy, Jerome, but that's nothing new.

Next time, click on the links and read all the way through.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  14:03:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.




The IPCC's job is to report on the science, not to do the science.


Yes, report on it. Not ignore it or pick and choose from it.







Better yet you are not concerned when the scientific majority is silenced?


Majority? 400 vs. 2800?


What 2800?

The Summary for Policymakers was but one of four parts of the entire IPCC report.


Well hopefully they do better work in those areas.


The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny.


Did someone claim that?


I hope not.

It only takes one person to discover an already-existing consensus.


Or imagine one.



Nobody votes on a consensus.


Especially at the NAS and AMS

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  14:41:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.Stick to the science, Bill. Ignore the propaganda, because it is transparently bad.



But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded.


http://tinyurl.com/2gg67u





The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”


http://tinyurl.com/373gab



In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK <The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.

http://tinyurl.com/2dox7v


Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures

http://tinyurl.com/2735l7


But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded.

http://tinyurl.com/2gg67u



Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, recently echoed Renwick's sentiments about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007. He also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess

http://tinyurl.com/2bhcx4


New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes:

http://tinyurl.com/28c3pr


Belgian weather institute's (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming

http://tinyurl.com/23v7cm



Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age

http://tinyurl.com/388sqo



New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth's climate

http://tinyurl.com/2qewlz

http://tinyurl.com/2fu8s3



Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY -

http://tinyurl.com/ynoggu


Updated: October 2, 2007: Danish National Space Ce

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.19 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000