|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-25-2007, 04:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
fence sitter
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
__________________
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the crotch of the person who screws up your day and may their arms be too short to scratch. AMEN. 
|
|
#2
10-25-2007, 07:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#3
10-27-2007, 07:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is interesting to see that the denial machine is still running well. This is an absolutely classic example of how it works too, look at the little blurb with the link:
An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth By Brandon Keim October 11, 2007 | 12:17:08 PMCategories: Climate, Government A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth can't be shown in schools unless accompanied by materials explaining the film's inaccuracies. Somebody reads that and they see get the impression that the film is inaccurate. If you read the judge's decision you find that he lists 9 points he disagrees with but uses the term "broadly accurate" to actually describe the film. Yes, that is a direct quote from the judge. I seem to remember Gore touching on the denial machine in the movie but it is something that people seem reluctant to really consider. The same people who were involved in the cigarette industry's maneuvers ten years ago are the people leading this "skeptic" movement. Pinhead even pointed it out 2 pages ago and everyone still missed it. The PR company in charge of it is the same, the polling consultant is the same guy and even some of the oft quoted scientists are the same. How can a guy who stood up and said "cigarettes are not addictive and pose no serious health risks", be considered a reliable source for cookie recipes never mind something this important! Anyone else love irony? There is a wicked little chunk of it buried in our discussion here. Swags pointed out Crichton's book State of Fear which is a pretty decent little read, I'd recommend it as well. Now to be fair to Swags I don't think he brought it up to use specifically as a counterpoint to Gore's movie but fear mongering is something people trying to get emissions changes done are accused of regularly. Especially Gore. There is a far better book recently published about using fear based arguments to shape political discussions. It talks about how fear really works, how it shapes our memories and discussions and using recent political events shows how it is done. It talks about why it is a bad strategy from a public good perspective as well. An excellent read called Assault on Reason written by .... wait for it ..... Al Gore. Really though it doesn't even matter what happens with the global warming debate, our ability to have a decent public debate has been destroyed. The lesson to take away from this is that if you need to do something in the public interest that's going to cost somebody with deep pockets some bucks, you're boned. These guys are so good you don't stand a chance. We can look at the current debate as an example, try this little thought exercise: We're a group of people who have all had the benefit of a decent basic education just because of where we live. We come together because of our hobby which surely isn't rocket science but I think we can say that if you're reasonably successful with a reef tank you're probably not a moron. None of us are climate scientists either so we're pretty much basing this decision on the credibility of the people making the arguments. Everyone can agree with that right? Okay here goes. On one hand we have the largest international scientific consensus in human history and on the other we have an Exxon-paid-for speech by the "smoking doesn't hurt you" guy. I mean really, WTF? How is this an even sort of difficult call? As a former and much embarrassed by it fence sitter I urge you all to look at the people who are pushing this skeptic junk, it will really open your eyes.
|
|
#4
10-25-2007, 07:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 Quote:
- 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.
|
Hybrid Mode
