[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
"I'm aware that the data show only a very small trend. Yes but in the opposite
cause= effect direction... I'm aware that excitable folk can characterise this
'debacle' as fraud."
This "debacle" labeled fraud although relevant is hardly the most important
issue here...My focus is not to try and convince you that man made global
warming is real or not at this point. I am just trying to get you to
1.See your inconsistency in what you consider authority vs this side of the
isle and the level of proof you expect from this side in contrast to the level
of proof you accept elsewhere.
2.Start to be consistent in what you expect from us v with how you evaluate/
conclude anything from any where else.
By your own admission you do not appear to be focused on evaluation of the
issues or underlying data they are based on. You are more interested in
"playing the odds" . You are missing our point, "playing the odds" itself only
has meaning if your method for calculating those odds is relevant based on
meaningful input. It is your method for calculating the odds that is the heart
of concern here. You go with what you think the majority believes without
evaluating how they reached that conclusion or even knowing for sure that the
majority even adheres to such, confusing media hype about consensus & certainty
with the reality. History is replete with examples of minorities taking the
upper hand by simply asserting that they are the majority and everyone else is
foolish or treasonous in ths case of the bolsheviks.
I flatter myself that I can tell the difference between a lot of generalized
verbiage containing the kind of hyped up, unenforceable non-statements one
commonly finds in advertisements .....This I have learned from experience. Thus
'stopdummingdown' is like a red light and sirens
There are a lot of generalized unenforceable non-statements statements
everywhere....That is not the point nor is it the determining factor for the
truth or not of those generalized statements........Good...........If you know
that to be true then what is your point?...If you don?t agree then how does
your red lights and sirens determine truth?...How does the "stopdummingdown"
phase have anything to do with the content of the presentation true or
not?..Would it be more true if it were a site devoted to MMGW? ...If it dose
how? If not then what is your point?.... How does anything you have said affect
or determine the necessity for an objective evaluation of material, the same
material used to make the case for it? Would it make any difference if I
attached the same charts and show the problems with it..? I suggested that one
because it would cut out a lot of overhead with sending of charts, attachments
and such.
As for the site you mentioned http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_freon.txt there
are quite a few dangerous chemicals out there, no one questions that or even
that MSDS...How does that determine the degree of man made global
warming?.......The presentation I referenced uses the IPCC?s own charts and
data related to man made global warming not just the fact that dangerous
chemicals made by man get into the atmosphere.......... You don?t have to be a
rocket scientists to see the difference or the problems with the whole bill of
sale on GW ....Give it a try......Take a look.....You might learn something you
had not thought of before...even if you are not convinced. Otherwise any debate
or discussion of issues absent of relevant data are just exercises in
philosophy external of any reality, and if that is so then why do you debate or
discuss anything at all?
I'm not convinced. But thanks for the effort.
I must say you appear to me a man who is most afraid of losing your perceived
notion of certainty on the cosmos and life around you, more then finding out
truth... Is certainty more important then truth?...If so then why the need to
argue as you do without evidence or logic, the points, just let it be ....ah..
I think I see, you need to convince others of your perception and methodology
about certainty to assure yourself........ It is not about truth or reality at
all is it?.........You only want to feel safe, but you can?t because there are
voices like me who keep telling you that you are not safe...You don?t want to
believe them but you can?t ignore them either.....You need to assure yourself
that these voices are not real, just delusional ghost if you will, so you talk
at them to prove to yourself you are not afraid, all the while you avoid any
logical approach to them, lest you lend them any validity and thus reality such
that they then might show you something ..the
something you fear the worst.....that they are more real then everything else
you perceive...that reality does not have you safe with any certainty of any
control, ...... ..thus you would have no control and certainly no safety....
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I don't worry about conspiracies. However ...
Let me explain some of my feelings here. I do not have the necessary IQ and
training to evaluate most raw scientific data but I flatter myself that I can
tell the difference between a lot of generalised verbiage containing the kind
of hyped up, unenforceable non-statements one commonly finds in advertisements
-- two of my favourites being "This car is fully equipped!" and "Oh! yes! The
flouride in this toothpaste has been proven by university tests!". I also
flatter myself that I can recognise those books, "documentary" titles, etc
which are likely to consist largely of statements of the type given above just
by the terminology used in the title and the sub-title. This I have learned
from experience. Thus 'stopdummingdown' is like a red light and sirens. Unless
you are stupid, you learn from this experience that these offerings are of
little value. Now I could be wrong but I prefer to back the odds.
I'm getting old now and the time left to me is much less than the time I've
already used, so it behooves me to use what remains carefully. Now the short
version of the Global Warming presentation is >15MB -- I'd be here all night.
Also, I visited the book store and perused the books recommended. I'd have to
say the titles and the descriptions are largely of the kind I believe would not
repay the time needed to read them. They are from what I think of as 'The
Alternatives'. Also among these books were a significant number by Ann Coulter,
a person whose name I have reason from a number of reviews to distrust.
So you see it's a bit like the expression "You can judge a man by the company
he keeps". This wouldn't be an issue if there was the kind of spread of titles
one expects in a regular book store but here there was a decided lean to the
extravagent, the off-beat, the sensational.
If you would like to make recommendations which I would be likely to judge
worthy of the time needed, have a look at this site which I referenced in an
earlier post to Philip M http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_freon.txt No slick
presentation, no eyecatching provocative titles, a real Joe Friday kind of
site. A .txt file no less!!!
Now to the point at issue. I'm aware there is not unanimity here. I'm aware
that the data show only a very small trend. I'm aware that excitable folk can
characterise this 'debacle' as fraud. I'm not convinced. But thanks for the
effort.
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.
Other related posts:
