RE: [DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle

["timnagin" <timnagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with your first statement, but it seems a lot of people do not.  I
hear these people talking about the global warming crisis and they state
over and over that "so many scientists agree, so it must be true."  Science
is not consensus.  Anyone who believes it is does not understand science.

 

You knowing those people does not make your decisions any more credible, or
correct for that matter.  Their study of this also does not make it without
fallacy.  If other people are reporting the opposite, based on the same
research, I ask again - which one is correct?  We do not know.

 

I have quite a bit of education in the sciences as well and can read and
understand this information on my own.  My stating that and proving I can
does not make my decision any more correct either.

 

Greg

 

  _____  

From: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of jonheese
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:37 AM
To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle

 

Clearly, only a fool would make a decision on a scientific matter
based on a public opinion poll.

Fundamentally, the number of people that believe a theory is
irrelevant to its veracity.

I believe what I believe because I've been involved in the science. I
have read the scientific literature in climate science journals, I
have friends who work on ship in the arctic circle 7 months a year,
doing research on climate change for the U.S. and Canadian
governments, I've had hour-long discussions with professors and
scientists who have studied the effects of anthropogenic atmospheric
carbon and the resulting climate change, my brother-in-law is a
chemical engineer getting his doctorate in climatology at the
University of Houston...

I would never tell you "Trust me", because I know you want to find out
for yourself. But I don't have any magic door to the truth.

Regards,
Jon Heese

--- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com,
"timnagin" <timnagin@...> wrote:
>
> Yet, people are saying the same thing about both sides of the issue.
Again,
> which one is correct? The truth is, we do not absolutely know. 
Both sides
> could be termed propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> If we have more people saying one side is true does that make that side
> true? No. Here is an analogy - there are one hundred people
standing in a
> room. Ninety nine of those people say the moon is made of green cheese.
> One does not agree. That does not mean the moon is made of green
cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
[mailto:DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com] On
Behalf
> Of jonheese
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:59 AM
> To: DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> Subject: [DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle
> 
> 
> 
> Read the analyses, then say that.
> 
> This is not a matter of people saying, "Nuh-uh! I think it's this!" 
> We're talking about bodies of scientists rejecting the theories
> presented, scientists interviewed in the film denouncing the view of
> the film and saying their interviews were twisted around to put words
> in their mouths, sources of graphs used in the film shown to be total
> hogwash based on an analysis of the actual source graph, etc..
> 
> It really is a piece of propaganda, pure and simple.
> 
> Regards,
> Jon Heese
> 
> --- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com,
> "jonheese" <jonheese@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com,
> "timnagin" <timnagin@> wrote:
> > > I haven't finished watching it yet. Might those people who denounce
> > it be
> > > of the mindset we are in a crisis? :-) Maybe they should have used a
> > > really slick, well-known public servant so it would have been
believed
> > > without checking the facts.
> > 
> > I'm only three-quarters of the way through it yet as well, but I've
> > already counted more glaring inaccuracies and faulty logic than I can
> > even remember without writing them down...
> > 
> > If you read through the pages I posted links for, you'll see that the
> > logic used to denounce the viewpoints of the film is not based on the
> > mindset of the people doing the arguing. It shows that some of the
> > tactics used by the film were dirty tricks, not facts. At least a few
> > of the "scientists" interviewed are not experts in the field they are
> > discussing, or have opinions and theories that are presented as proven
> > fact, when they have not been published or peer-reviewed.
> > 
> > In addition, I happen to know Tim Ball personally, and he is
> > bankrolled by petroleum companies (a simply Google search will show
> > many source of these ties). He used to be a faculty member (not a
> > professor) in the geography department at the University of Winnipeg,
> > but now he tours the country making millions telling people what they
> > want to hear. The film credits him as a Professor from the Department
> > of Climatology (which doesn't even exist).
> > 
> > In addition, the film did not mention that there has be NO science in
> > the peer-reviewed scientific journals refuting anthropogenic global
> > warming:
> > 
> > http://www.sciencem
> <http://www.sciencem
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>
ag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>
> ag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
> > 
> > > "The funny thing is that this film can be shown to have done almost
> > all of
> > > the things it claims its opponents did to skew the data in the their
> > favor,
> > > plus a few more..."
> > > 
> > > Given this, which is why I stated previously I will not blatantly
> > believe
> > > either side, which side is correct? Why would anyone adhere to one
> > side or
> > > the other without trying to find all of the facts? I have said it
> > so many
> > > times now it has almost lost all meaning to me, but information is
> > so easy
> > > to find now, why don't more people do it?
> > 
> > Yeah, it is more and more difficult for the layperson to get real,
> > true, unmolested data and analysis on this topic. Both sides have
> > been politicized and the waters have been muddied to the point where
> > it's easy not to know which side to trust.
> > 
> > I don't have an answer for you. You just have to do your due
> > diligence and research what's being published.
> > 
> > >>Think, research, think some more, then believe.
> > > 
> > > Believe what?
> > 
> > Whatever you determine is right.
> > 
> > Would "decide" have been a better word?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jon Heese
> > 
> > > From: DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> [mailto:DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com>
s.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of jonheese
> > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:13 AM
> > > To: DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> > > Subject: [DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ah yes, I remember this program now... I just started watching
it and
> > > I immediately recognized the propaganda from a report I read earlier
> > > this year on it.
> > > 
> > > It is FULL of scientific holes, falsehoods and misrepresentations. 
> > > See here for a full treatment of the subject:
> > > 
> > > http://en.wikipedia
> > > <http://en.wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle>
.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle>
> .org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle>
> > > .org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
> > > 
> > > Make sure you check out the sections "Reactions from scientists",
> > > "Carl Wunsch Controversy" (where the MIT professor interviews in the
> > > film claims to have been misled and taken out of context to make it
> > > sound like he said the opposite of what he actually said), and
> > > "Contributors to the programme", (where you can see that Tim Ball,
> > > that ass-clown, is NOT a professor of ANYTHING at ANY university, as
> > > he claimed in the film).
> > > 
> > > The film does have its bits of truth, but it was really badly
> > > put-together, as anyone with a climate science background could
> > > plainly see.
> > > 
> > > Here's a quick play-by-play of all the holes and controversy:
> > > http://www.desmogbl
> > > <http://www.desmogbl
> <http://www.desmogbl
<http://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play>
og.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play>
> og.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play>
> > > og.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play
> > > 
> > > Here's another well-written analysis:
> > > http://climatedenia
> > >
> >
> <http://climatedenia
>
<http://climatedenia
<http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindl
> l.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindl
> > l.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindl
> > > e-so-persuasive/>
> > >
> l.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global-warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
> > > 
> > > The funny thing is that this film can be shown to have done
almost all
> > > of the things it claims its opponents did to skew the data in the
> > > their favor, plus a few more...
> > > 
> > > Think, research, think some more, then believe.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Jon Heese
> > > 
> > > --- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com>
s.com,
> > > "jonheese" <jonheese@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For anyone interested in this program, it can be downloaded here:
> > > > 
> > > > http://jonheese.
> > > <http://jonheese.
> <http://jonheese.
<http://jonheese.com/video/The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle.avi>
com/video/The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle.avi>
> com/video/The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle.avi>
> > > com/video/The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle.avi (~698MB)
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jon Heese
> > > > 
> > > > --- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com>
> s.com,
> > > "jonheese" <jonheese@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cool concept, I'd really like to see that. I'm, *ahem*,
> > obtaining the
> > > > > movie right now, and I'll post a link to it when I get it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The comments on that site about incoming comments being 6 to
1 in
> > > > > favor of its viewpoints are hardly surprising. No one really
likes
> > > > > change, and in the midst of all the global warming nutcases
> > screaming
> > > > > about CO2 and the greenhouse effect, it's no wonder people
get all
> > > > > excited and encouraging when a scientific-looking source tells
> them
> > > > > that their cars are not killing the planet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's never been a mystery or a secret (not to me, at least) that
> > > > > man-made greenhouse gases are in the minority when compared
to the
> > > > > naturally-occurring variety. The more compelling fact is the
> rate of
> > > > > change from these sources.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Volcanoes aren't spewing any more CO2 than they did 10,000 years
> > ago,
> > > > > but there are a good amount more people and animals (think:
> > livestock)
> > > > > exhaling, farting and burning hydrocarbons. The science
behind the
> > > > > global greenhouse effect is solid. Whether or not it is the
reason
> > > > > for the recent global warming trend, I don't know for sure.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What I do know is that I will not stick my head in the sand and
> > > > > pretend that everything is okay. At least not until I am
> > convinced by
> > > > > scientific research that we are fine the way we're going.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Jon Heese
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In DMCForum@yahoogroup <mailto:DMCForum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > s.com,
> > > Martin Gutkowski <martin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Early this year I had my entire viewpoint changed by a
single TV
> > > show 
> > > > > > shown on Channel 4 here in the UK. I'm not someone who is
easily
> > > > swayed 
> > > > > > on something I thought I knew about - but in the space of 90
> > > > minutes, I 
> > > > > > felt like I'd had my eyes opened.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I seriously suggest you guys buy the DVD when it comes out, or
> > > > *cough* 
> > > > > > maybe see if there're any torrents out there.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > http://www.greatglo
> <http://www.greatglo <http://www.greatglo
<http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/> balwarmingswindle.co.uk/>
> balwarmingswindle.co.uk/>
> > > balwarmingswindle.co.uk/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In my own nutshell, it points out really clearly that CO2 is
> > NOT a 
> > > > > > pollutant, nor does increasing levels of CO2 cause an
> increase in
> > > > > global 
> > > > > > temperatures; it's *the other way around*
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My favourite stat they showed was a very simple pie-chart
> > > showing the 
> > > > > > proportions of CO2 emitted by animals (you, me, the cat next
> > > > door), the 
> > > > > > burning of fossil fuels and VOLCANOES. Did you know that
> volcanoes
> > > > are 
> > > > > > responsible for over a quarter of co2 emissions vs less
than 10%
> > > for 
> > > > > > fossil fuel burning?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Anyway, having watched the program makes for some very
> interesting
> > > > > debates!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Martin 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:DMCForum-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    mailto:DMCForum-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/