[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

Paul I can easily come to terms with your attitude regarding religion, even 
though your reasoning fails to hide an obvious antagonism which could be called 
more kindly bias. 

However I cannot accept this sort of reasoning in your attitude to science and 
history. The best way I could explain would be to ask you to have some 
introspection and analyse with me the following. 

With respect to the film The Great Global Warming Swindle you said: 
Personally I take the view that these debates should generally not be stifled. 
It just gives the proponents ammunition. Notice how you have prejudged the 
debates, and taken sides by your final sentence. "it gives the proponents 
ammunition".  Ammunition for what? Is it a war? Shouldn't you have said, in 
keeping with your many times stated peer review argument, that every scientific 
opinion should be canvassed and tested?  I wonder, perhaps your refusal to 
accept the possibility of any conspiracy, given that your base premise is that 
conspiracies are merely nutty theories, is the prime cause of your 
pre-judgement position. 

There are plenty of qualified people who will competantly refute any bad 
science and from what little I've seen so far - Is bad science? - I haven't 
actually looked mind you -- If you have not even looked then on what basis do 
you judge the science.  Are people like Patrick Moore Co-founder of Greenpeace 
, incompetent. Are people like  Nir Shaviv Professor, Institute of Physics 
University of Jerusalem , Ian Clark Professor, Dept of earth sciences, 
University of Ottawa plus many more similarly qualified people not entitled to 
an opinion to refute the Main stream popular opinion of the day. Shouldn't you 
avail yourself of all the information before judgement. 

I think it has many of the marks of sensationalism and general shonkiness one 
comes to associate with items like this. Items like this??  Like what? Oh, 
perhaps you mean like all TV programs on science.  Looking at the vast range of 
such programs surely you have to admit of the general tone of sensationalism in 
their presentation.  That is what captures the audience, when such audience is 
not expected to be of the scientific community. This does not imply 
"shonkiness" which means what? Imperfection or deceit? 

This particular program presents science, which is so to the point on technical 
matters that it just may not be sensational enough to capture public attention. 

I will watch it when it airs however.

I wouldn't wait. I do not think it will see the light of day. If it does, "for 
public consumption"  of course, they will have to cut the boring science out of 
it..  

Like the detail and graphs on the  ice cores and CO2.  Never mind the 
volcanoes.  The producers have already admitted of the mistake in attributing 
volcanoes with the major C02 emissions. 

You can watch it right now here!  If your connection is slow, pause it till the 
lot is downloaded. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

Finally what is your problem of not including the following list of men among 
those you refer here to. "There are plenty of qualified people who will 
competantly refute any bad science "  

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Professor and Director, International Arctic Research 
Center 

Tim Ball - Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (misattributed as 
Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left 
his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of 
Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.) 

Nigel Calder - Former Editor, New Scientist 

John Christy - Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of 
Alabama in Huntsville and Lead Author, IPCC 

Ian Clark - Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa 

Piers Corbyn - Weather Forecaster, Weather Action 

Paul Driessen - Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death 

Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct 
Professor, University of Copenhagen 

Nigel Lawson - Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 

Richard Lindzen - Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T. 

Patrick Michaels - Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University 
of Virginia 

Patrick Moore - Co-founder, Greenpeace 

Paul Reiter - Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, 
Paris 

Nir Shaviv - Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem 

James Shikwati - Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive 

Frederick Singer - Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, 
University of Virginia (misattributed in the film as Former Director, U.S. 
National Weather Service. From 1962-64 he was Director of the National Weather 
Satellite Service.) 

Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA 

Philip Stott - Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of 
London 

Carl Wunsch - Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since 
repudiated the programme)[42] 

Philip. 



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 3:24 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change


  Philip M

  From philip madsen Sun May 27 01:12:05 2007

  but on an aside, I am still waiting upon Paul D to comment on the ethics 
exposed as political action by groups allegedly Science backed, against the 
broadcasting of the film The Great Global Warming Swindle.. to the point of 
having it banned like something worse than porn. Has to be worse, there's is 
plenty of the latter on the air. Obviously the science cannot be flawed. But 
even if it could, shouldn't the debate be allowed in public.?? 

  And Paul. whats your reaction about the outcry against the new 'disney land", 
oops, I mean Creation museum? Really, Oh really, what are they frightened of..?

  I debated commenting on these issues and decided (since I was tired and it 
was late) to pass. However, since you solicit my input, I'll comment despite it 
being late and I'm tired. See how I care? |[:-)

  Personally I take the view that these debates should generally not be 
stifled. It just gives the proponents ammunition. There are plenty of qualified 
people who will competantly refute any bad science and from what little I've 
seen so far -- I haven't actually looked mind you -- I think it has many of the 
marks of sensationalism and general shonkiness one comes to associate with 
items like this. I will watch it when it airs however.

  Sadly I can't give references, but I recently heard the comment that ice 
cores have shown a steady increase in CO2 from the beginning of the industrial 
revolution to the present, while known major volcanic events did not so 
register.

  Creation Museum? Well some people will be thrilled I'm sure but I am not 
among them. But again, in the interest of free expression (except shouting 
"Fire!" in a crowded theatre) attempting to silence dissenters serves only to 
provide the aforsaid ammunition. Just so long as it doesn't surface in a school 
science classroom.

  At the end of the day, when there are two opinions about a physical 
phenomenon which differ radically, only one may be correct. Later, people will 
remember the accurate predictions based on an understanding of the phenomenon, 
while those predictions which are proven incorrect (or were not made) will be 
filed with Looney Tunes. Some time ago, I found the attached cartoon at the 
angryflower.com site. Most of his cartoons leave me flat but this one I thought 
made a valid point.

   
  Paul D



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in 
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.1/822 - Release Date: 28/05/2007 
11:40 AM

Other related posts: