Sorry i guess the last post should say ...'rather than just appear to pretty much a copy' - (too late to edit now and its the first time ive looked back) your posts do remind of certain websites, rather than looking like individual research.
Actually I've been interested in GW for a few years and have read many books on the subject both for and against the concept of AGW.
As regards this thread, I've purely been driven by the posts in terms of research - so if someone suggested ice core samples provided solid proof of CO2 and GW I'd go over the books I'd read to see and then have a look around to see how I could impart that via a link (because I can't obviously copy and paste into a post from a book without it becoming a bit time consuming).
I've never researched any of it on sites that are anti AGW because to be honest I think there are loonies on both sides and I find sites that are vehemently pro anything aren't always that subjective or that concerned with looking into the detail that closely.
So without loooking at the sites you're referring to, I don't know if your comments regarding similarities are complimentary or insulting..
What has been interesting though is that whereas from what I've previously read I've always been suspicious of the AGW argument, this thread and the subsequent research that I've done on the back of it has absolutely convinced me that it's a lie.
This is a really important issue and my view is that if you're going to have an opinion on it you need research it yourself and come up with your own conclusions - and that's what I've done.
Hope that answers the points you raised.
I’ve had a busy few days and little time to write anything. At this point I think a few additions would be worthwhile. Here are a few of my observations on the goings on in this thread.
Throughout this debate, Rocky, I, and others have highlighted irregularities that exist between the information available in the public domain and the ‘official version’ being pushed by the likes of the IPCC. In doing so we are demonstrating our willingness to consider what appear to be conflicting data and viewpoints.
Meanwhile, Barry has:
1. Accused me of being blinkered even though I’m willing to consider everything and ask questions when I encounter evidence of devious methods.
2. Slavishly adhered to the IPCC reports even when I’ve provided examples (Ian Tomlinson, Iraq War Justification) of why it is generally wise to treat the ‘official version’ with caution when dealing with contentious issues.
3. Repeatedly stated that there are 1000s of scientists producing 1000s of publications in support of AGW, but failed to provide any concrete evidence of this.
4. Been happy to casually dismiss evidence of dubious data processing methods as legitimate and ‘how it’s done’, before using the coverall argument that even if there has been data manipulation, it doesn’t really matter, because ‘1000s scientists and publications can’t be wrong’.
5. Suggested that persons from certain demographics are incapable of holding a valid opinion on climate change and therefore must be excluded from the debate.
6. Generally stuck his head in the sand to valid criticisms and points of debate:
As Rocky pointed out (and Barry ignores!)
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that not everything I’ve presented here is perfect or well articulated, and in a few cases I’ve made some tongue in cheek replies to what I regarded as ridiculous arguments. However, at least I’m willing to search out information, and think like a person rather than following like a sheep. If I have one objective for this thread then it is this: To get people thinking for themselves about whether the ‘official version’ of climate science stands up to scrutiny following the hacking/leaking of files from CRU/UEA. Let people read the information and the arguments and decide for themselves; but only if they are willing and able to set their prejudices aside.
There has been quite a bit of Googling, however, Rocky has bothered to read books on the subject and so he is probably the best informed person in this thread. In any case, to me, the distinguishing factor should be, and is; which contributors are prepared to take a critical view of the information that is available in the public domain and which contributors are happy to ignore/dismiss anything that doesn’t fit the ‘official version’ they’ve been fed for so long. To me, it seems rather pointless to bother learning anything about science if you aren’t willing or able to apply critical analysis to what you read and observe. As I said in my opening post, ‘a lie told often enough becomes the truth’,we’ve been told about AGW a billion times; but is it the truth?
I’d always understood that forgiveness was an act to which conditions cannot be attached. If conditions are attached as a pre-requisite to being forgiven then surely it is no longer an act of grace and instead becomes some kind of ‘deal’ that degrades both the ‘forgiver’ and the ‘forgiven’. In my opinion the current situation is a sorry state of affairs for all; be assured that I will say no more on the matter.
As you wish: http://www.cas.org/products/sfacad/index.html
Hmmmm, this post is far longer than I intended.
It’s almost Christmas, so I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year.
Oh dear! The IPCC have been caught out!
Included in one of their reports was material that 'was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research'
The IPCC are refusing to comment.
Read all about it here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece
Here's an interesting interview of Prof. Phil Jones which was conducted recently by the BBC. In my opinion, this interview has not received the press coverage it deserves.
Enjoy!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
I thought this was mildly entertaining: a list of reports about how different places are all warming up much faster than the global average. How can it be that: Africa, Europe, Tibet, Kuwait, Australia, China, US, Korea (to name a few) are all warming up faster than the global average, according to scientists?*
Guess than means it is b***** freezing in Vladivostok and Bognor Regis then.
See http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/0...ce-really.html for all the references.
* Plus, don't forget Mars - which is being affected by global warming (4 times faster than planet Earth apparently).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks