An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[Swags]

I too am a fence sitter...... want a good book to read about the 'truth'.... Michael Crichton -> State of Fear. Good read and it clearly puts into perspective the red herrings presented to all of us, including 'science'. It also has a great little blurb at the back of the book explaining 'Eugenics', a very strange outlook on genetics that some very prominent 'scientists' supported at the time. One great thing I have learned about science, give it enough time and it will be disproved and re-created to fit someone's perspective or agenda. When I was a kid, it was acid rain and a cold war looming over all of us. It has been replaced with global warming. Anyone heard of the dimming sun? Check it out, it has thrown another wrench into the 'models' climatologist's use to statistically prove their theory, and if there is one thing I remember from university stats, they cannot be trusted, it is an educated guess, just like weather. We will have to wait till the new quantum computer comes out to properly grind all the numbers, including intangibles that cannot be included in today's models. Also check out HAARP. I believe this is what is causing all of our weather issues right now.... and I know, crackpot right? Nope, this is for real and they are doing some very strange things to our atmosphere and ionosphere, very scary things that could end all life on the planet in a heartbeat. And also, no one has touched on the emissions our earth pours out every day from volcanoes. Their emissions in a day (combined) far outweigh what we can do in a decade. Do I think anyone here is right or wrong, nope, I just think it's great we are talking about it. And my final point, tongue in cheek, I think this is just a way to justify increased fuel costs.

Cheers,
Phil

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Swags

I too am a fence sitter...... want a good book to read about the 'truth'.... Michael Crichton -> State of Fear. Good read and it clearly puts into perspective the red herrings presented to all of us, including 'science'. It also has a great little blurb at the back of the book explaining 'Eugenics', a very strange outlook on genetics that some very prominent 'scientists' supported at the time. One great thing I have learned about science, give it enough time and it will be disproved and re-created to fit someone's perspective or agenda. When I was a kid, it was acid rain and a cold war looming over all of us. It has been replaced with global warming. Anyone heard of the dimming sun? Check it out, it has thrown another wrench into the 'models' climatologist's use to statistically prove their theory, and if there is one thing I remember from university stats, they cannot be trusted, it is an educated guess, just like weather. We will have to wait till the new quantum computer comes out to properly grind all the numbers, including intangibles that cannot be included in today's models. Also check out HAARP. I believe this is what is causing all of our weather issues right now.... and I know, crackpot right? Nope, this is for real and they are doing some very strange things to our atmosphere and ionosphere, very scary things that could end all life on the planet in a heartbeat. And also, no one has touched on the emissions our earth pours out every day from volcanoes. Their emissions in a day (combined) far outweigh what we can do in a decade. Do I think anyone here is right or wrong, nope, I just think it's great we are talking about it. And my final point, tongue in cheek, I think this is just a way to justify increased fuel costs.

Cheers,
Phil

Eugenics - philosophy not science

Acid Rain - reduction in emissions in modern cars and the 1990 US clean air act have slowed its effects

Cold War - politics

Global Dimming -2007 studies show it has rebounded since 1990 which correlates with the reduction of chloroflurocarbons in aerosol spray cans

HAARP - funded by the military yes. But also by 14 universities including Cornell, MIT, UCLA & Stanford. If its being used to alter the weather or shoot down spaceships its a pretty big conspiracy.

Volcanic emmisions - 130 million tons/year humans 6.1 billion tons/year

Could supply references if needed but I think I will just leave it.

I've made my point.

Hope people have not taken anything personally.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by skylord

Pinhead lets do it your way. Lets read what you posted.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

This is an article written 12 years ago based on information gathered 10 years before that. It seems to me if the data where a little more recent it may be different but what do I know....I just read that I'm not smart enough to understand.

Once again we have someone commenting on things where they don't have all the information. This is not a matter of intelligence.

Scientific Journals are subscription based. The cost for subscriptions can be ridiculous amount. They very rarely allow access to their articles over the internet unless you are a subscriber. I happened to do a quick search internet accessible articles and came up with that article from 1995. Proper research would require you to access a university library that subscribes to these journals. One tool you can use at universities is is a database called metalib. By doing a search on just one of their many subject databases I came up with 23 references to ice cores & climate, seven of which were published in 2007. Proper research would involve more searches going to the library to read these journals.

You also seem to associate the American Geophysical Union with OISM and the Heartland Institute. AGU was formed in 1919 and is an international organization of over 50000 geophysists - not a group with a PO box and 2 of the 8 listed faculty dead.

Originally Posted by skylord

The article was published by the American Geophysical Union. So what I did was research them.Their position statement on climate change was written by 3 people, Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel and starts saying " Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

Read this statement carefully. "natural influences cannot explain" means humans are responsible! That was Christy's position in 2003.

By 2007 his position had changed as illustrated in the quote from the discounted
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece
"Great Global Warming Swindle"

Christy's position on global warming in the documentary was based on the analysis of satellite data that was collected in the 1990's. There were errors in the way data was collected and analysed http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778

He has not yet made a statement based on analysis of more recent data. Will he change his position again? Falsifiability (discarding) past hypotheses is a key to the scientific method

Originally Posted by skylord

What I see that troubles me most is that if anyone doesn't agree with you they arn't informed well enough to understand "the" truth. Scary!
Scott

- Don't agree with me.
- Be a skeptic but be skeptical of both sides. I consider myself well informed and I have done my research. I looked at the question with an open mind and have found overwhelming evidence.
-Show me some research to help me change my conclusion. - just don't give me yet another source from someone other than a climate scientist.

My conclusion is the based upon the scientific method which is tried and tested for the last 400 years. That is the "truth" that I understand.