[DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle

["jonheese" <jonheese@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Gutkowski <martin@...> wrote:
>>> YOU SAID IT. I really like that I've promoted good discussion on the 
> topic, and as long as it stays friendly and objective, that's a GOOD
THING.
> 
> I came away from the documentary leaning towards its conclusions. I 
> still think pollution is bad and recycling is good but when it comes to 
> global warming.... there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Show me
one 
> person who says the greenhouse effect is man-made, and I'll show you 
> someone who says it isn't. What's needed is healthy debate, and I think 
> nobody'd argue that the documentary put across well the idea that 
> "Global Warming" has become a religion and those who denounce it are 
> treated as on the same level as holocaust deniers is pretty on the 
> money, IMO. (perhaps not quite as extreme!)

Absolutely.  It's a shame that the whole issue has been politicized as
much as it has.  There's no way to be sure of the "facts" as they're
presented in documentaries with agendas, or even to be sure that the
scientific community will accept a change in theories if the evidence
changes...

It's actually pretty scary.

> MY PREDICTION:
> 
> If this documentary is to be believed, then within the next 20-50
years, 
> average temperatures will either level off or start to fall. And as was 
> pointed out in the documentary, by the time it does, we'll have 
> forgotten all about those people who made those predictions...

Yes, that sounds like it makes sense, based on the theories put forth
in the film.  Many of the scientists and researchers interviewed in
the film are doing good, real science, and there are plenty of real
theories out there for global warming that don't involve heavy
contribution from the greenhouse effect caused by human activity.

I'd like to read about this research in published scientific
literature, though.

> Keep discussions open, and keep an open mind. You've been reading sites 
> debunking the documentary, and as Greg said, how about reading those 
> sites debunking Al Gore's "truth"? How is one more "propaganda" than
the 
> other?

As I said before, I'm not really interested in defending Gore's film,
nor do I see anything compelling about the comparison.  I don't make
my claims based on Gore's presentation of facts, so the sites
discrediting him don't affect my argument.

Scientific literature showing significant evidence to the contrary
would be really refreshing and encouraging to see, but until then, I
have to go with what makes sense, whether it's pleasant or not.

Regards,
Jon Heese



 
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/