[DMCForum] Re: Global Warming Swindle

["jonheese" <jonheese@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "timnagin" <timnagin@...> wrote:
>
> 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.

Consensus does not make good science, but good science does make
consensus.

> 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.

It is absolutely true that there is a LOT about atmospheric science
and climate change that we don't know, and a LOT of factors flying
around up there that cause these kinds of changes.  Predictions are
called "predictions" because they are not known, but there is a
science behind it; it's not just guesswork.

I mentioned the people I know in the science of it to show that I am
not basing my opinion on the media or some movie.

> 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.

I guess I haven't made this point very clear:  I'm not trying to
convince anyone of a viewpoint on global warming (or alternate energy,
or E85, or the future of fossil fuels)...  All I'm trying to do now is
defend the fact that I have done the research you're advocating, and
I've made up my mind.  Can we agree on that?

Regards,
Jon Heese

> 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/