Hlýnun jarðar af mannavöldum....global warming??..rétt eða rangt??
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Davíð Ólafsson
Dec 24, 2011, 7:00:27 PM12/24/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Kæru félagar!
Ég vona að það sé við hæfi að senda þetta á þennann umræðulista. Mér skilst að hann sé til þess ætlaður að kryfja mál og leita sannleikans. Mér var sendur þessi linkur af vini mínum og í byrjun var ég mjög skeptískur á þessa mynd, því að ég hafði eins og margir sem ég þekki myndað mér ákveðna skoðun á hugtakinu ,,hlýnun jarðar". Í þessari mynd er einmitt verið að fjalla um þetta málefni en á annann hátt, þ.e.a.s. að það er verið að koma fram með andstæða skoðun á því að þessi hlýnun sé af manna völdum.
Ég sjálfur hef hingað til haft þá skoðun að þessi hlýnun jarðar sé tvíþætt, þ.e.a.s. að sú hlýnun sem átt hefur sér stað í nokkuð langan tíma sé í raun og veru eðlieg þróun í sögu jarðarinnar, að hún sé alltaf að hitna og kólna á víxl með einhverjum þúsundum ára millibilum. Síðan hef ég haldið að þessi hlýnun sem á sér stað núna geti mögulega dýpkað vegna mengunar af mannavöldum sem er þá í formi útstreymis koltvísýrings í andrúmslofti sem hefur aukist og veldur extra hlýnun. Þessa skoðun hef ég haft lengi. Eftir að hafa horft á þessa mynd þar sem mikilsvirtir vísindamenn á sínu sviði koma fram með kenningar sem eru á öndverðum meiði við þá skoðun, þá verð ég að viðurkenna að ég er hugsi og velti því fyrir mér hvort það sé ekki rétt??
Í þessari mynd rekja þeir til baka hver það var sem kom upprunalega með þetta hugtak ,,hlýnun jarðar", eða ,,global warming". Þeir koma fram með athyglisverða sýn á pólitískri baráttu Margaret Thacher sem barðist fyrir því að fleiri kjarnorkuver væru byggð því hún leit á þau sem uppsprettu hinnar ,,hreinu orku", og var mikið á móti brennslu kolefna til iðnaðar og upphitunar og notaði slagorð eins og ,,global warming" í baráttu sinni fyrir því að opna fleiri kjarnorkuver og draga úr notkun kolefna.
Ég horfði á þessa mynd með opnum hug og ég verð að segja að það bærast með mér blendnar hugsanir og tilfinningar eftir áhorfið. Ég vona að þið getið lagt orð í belg og kíkt á þessa mynd sem er rúmlega klukkustundarlöng.
Kær kveðja
Davíð
--
Davíð Ólafsson
davido...@gmail.com
s:6950009
Ég vona að það sé við hæfi að senda þetta á þennann umræðulista. Mér skilst að hann sé til þess ætlaður að kryfja mál og leita sannleikans. Mér var sendur þessi linkur af vini mínum og í byrjun var ég mjög skeptískur á þessa mynd, því að ég hafði eins og margir sem ég þekki myndað mér ákveðna skoðun á hugtakinu ,,hlýnun jarðar". Í þessari mynd er einmitt verið að fjalla um þetta málefni en á annann hátt, þ.e.a.s. að það er verið að koma fram með andstæða skoðun á því að þessi hlýnun sé af manna völdum.
Ég sjálfur hef hingað til haft þá skoðun að þessi hlýnun jarðar sé tvíþætt, þ.e.a.s. að sú hlýnun sem átt hefur sér stað í nokkuð langan tíma sé í raun og veru eðlieg þróun í sögu jarðarinnar, að hún sé alltaf að hitna og kólna á víxl með einhverjum þúsundum ára millibilum. Síðan hef ég haldið að þessi hlýnun sem á sér stað núna geti mögulega dýpkað vegna mengunar af mannavöldum sem er þá í formi útstreymis koltvísýrings í andrúmslofti sem hefur aukist og veldur extra hlýnun. Þessa skoðun hef ég haft lengi. Eftir að hafa horft á þessa mynd þar sem mikilsvirtir vísindamenn á sínu sviði koma fram með kenningar sem eru á öndverðum meiði við þá skoðun, þá verð ég að viðurkenna að ég er hugsi og velti því fyrir mér hvort það sé ekki rétt??
Í þessari mynd rekja þeir til baka hver það var sem kom upprunalega með þetta hugtak ,,hlýnun jarðar", eða ,,global warming". Þeir koma fram með athyglisverða sýn á pólitískri baráttu Margaret Thacher sem barðist fyrir því að fleiri kjarnorkuver væru byggð því hún leit á þau sem uppsprettu hinnar ,,hreinu orku", og var mikið á móti brennslu kolefna til iðnaðar og upphitunar og notaði slagorð eins og ,,global warming" í baráttu sinni fyrir því að opna fleiri kjarnorkuver og draga úr notkun kolefna.
Ég horfði á þessa mynd með opnum hug og ég verð að segja að það bærast með mér blendnar hugsanir og tilfinningar eftir áhorfið. Ég vona að þið getið lagt orð í belg og kíkt á þessa mynd sem er rúmlega klukkustundarlöng.
Kær kveðja
Davíð
www.youtube.com
Visit: http://www.infowars.com/ Run by Kurt Nimmo http://www.prisonplanet.com/ Run by Paul Watson http://prisonplanet.tv/ Run by Paul Watson http://jonesrepo/...
--
Davíð Ólafsson
davido...@gmail.com
s:6950009
Guðjón Eyjólfsson
Dec 24, 2011, 7:25:38 PM12/24/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Eitt af vandamálum við allar þær upplýsingar sem er nú auðvelt að nálgast er að þegar maður er að skoða efni sem maður hefur ekki næga þekkingu til að leggja mat á er stundum ómögulegt að meta af skynsemi hvaða rök eru traust og byggja á traustri þekkingu og hvað er mjög vafasamt. Hér er grein sem gagnrýnir þessa mynd-
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf
Kær kveðja Guðjón
Davíð Ólafsson
Dec 25, 2011, 5:29:16 PM12/25/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Takk fyrir þetta Guðjón ég ætla að kíkja á þetta!
Kveðja
Davíð
Kveðja
Davíð
Sean Scully
Dec 25, 2011, 10:28:38 PM12/25/11
to Bahai_umræða
I'm going to have another look at this video... I'll post some
thoughts shortly.
thoughts shortly.
Sean Scully
Dec 26, 2011, 4:53:01 AM12/26/11
to Bahai_umræða
Before I say anything I should probably disclose that I may be
associated with the global conspiracy of scientists charged with
hoodwinking folks. I must admit though, I haven’t been getting my hush
money so I guess it’s okay if I take part.
What an amazing piece of propaganda. I first saw this “documentary”
about 3 years ago and I was absolutely astounded that this piece was
ever broadcast. Upon a second viewing I noticed some serious problems
with the presentation. I watched it again last night for kicks and
took some notes this time. It is amazing how anything dressed up in
the documentary format will pass with relatively little scrutiny when
shown to the general populace.
One of the major problems with discussing global warming is the amount
of basic scientific knowledge needed discuss the shear volume of
topics needed just to get a good picture of global climate. To add
insult to injury, our planet is a very complex system and in our
western society, science literacy (i.e. not just memorizing science
facts) is an afterthought. Add to this the idea that the apparent
middle between two sides of a “debate” must be the truth is unhelpful
as it allows one side to move goal posts to the point of lunacy in
order to manipulate popular opinion.
My major issues with the intellectual integrity of this work basically
boils down to the following problems: cherry picking arguments, taking
quotes out of context (the Wikipedia page details this so I won’t go
into it), the use of half-truths, vague generalizations, and
misleading data representation. Also included is some rather clever
emotional manipulation such as the charge that concerns over global
warming is being used to prevent (sub-Saharan) African nations from
developing (as if global warming scare tactics are used in a
premeditated way). From a historical context this is quite interesting
given the rampant and quite deliberate exploitation of African peoples
by colonial powers and large multinational corporations. This appeal
to emotion is one of the same tactics used by the so-called “militant”
environmentalists groups to scare people. Boiling pot calling the
kettle black detected! The presentation of a false choice between
using a solar panel to run a light bulb or an appliance is utter
pandering to emotion based on nonsense.
Another major issue is the failure to present relevant information to
inform the viewer regarding some of the complexity of what is being
discussed and relying on anecdotal evidence to make points without
providing data sources or problems with actually collecting and
interpreting the data. For example, when the cartoony graphics
explaining how greenhouse gas-based global warming works, the
producers conveniently leave out the reflectivity of ice sheets due to
the difference in opacity of frozen versus liquid water. Of course
they move right on so you do not even miss it unless you’ve spent a
lot of time examining “the debate”.
Also, the use of only dissenting scientists in this piece is rather
alarming (although Carl Wunsch and others have said their statements
were taken out of context) as it helps frame the debate as there being
a lack of consensus among scientists. Rather, the debate among MOST
(but not all) scientists seems to be more about modeling methods and
the details of climate change than the phenomenon itself.
Historically, climate change/global warming (another semantic game
invented by pollsters because “climate change” was shown by polling
data to be “less scary; I will use the terms interchangeably, however)
deniers have pointed to Dr. Richard Muller (a physicist and devote
skeptic of all things from University of California Berkeley) as being
a devote naysayer on global warming frequently pointing to problems
with temperature data and so forth. Dr. Muller conducted a study
funded by Koch Industries (an oil company who have a massive anti-
global warming agenda for financial and political purposes) and
concluded that global warming is supported by the scientific data.
While this one case of a climate change skeptic changing his mind is
admittedly anecdotal, I think it certainly illustrates how looking at
the data objectively can lead you to a conclusion you may emotionally
feel compelled to reject.
Also, the program in general uses the tactic of appealing to basic
misconceptions and general mindsets that people may have. Examples
include appealing to simplicity (“there must be a simple, all
encompassing explanation”), a distrust of authority (“the people in
white lab coats and the government folks in suits are trying to screw
us!”), small is insignificant, and this idea that anything that is
apparently contradictory must be wrong or nonsense (“things can’t get
warmer AND colder?! That’s like saying light is both a particle and a
wave!).
Something else that I noticed is martyring of supposedly opposing
skeptical voices in the “climate change debate”. This is an aspect of
science that is frequently misunderstood. Scientists that stick to
assertions that are not supported by the evidence are quite different
from maintaining a skeptical attitude (such as the aforementioned
Richard Muller). Doggedly maintaining unsupported positions leads to
pseudoscience which can lead to fraud and quackery which is not
tolerated in the arena of fact-seeking. The film, however, makes it
sound as if scientists holding non-scientific beliefs are actively
persecuted although NO EVIDENCE is ever given to support such claims.
Such supporting evidence, if it exists, might include denial of
funding based upon bias towards the author rather than the merit of
ideas, firing from academic posts (which only happens under the most
egregious of circumstances), or the circulation of black lists. Should
such evidence of persecution of people based upon belief exist in the
scientific community, that would be evidence of major bias and
unscientific conduct in its own right! Is there any such evidence?
Apparently not otherwise it should be in the bloody film!
Anyway, on to a critical look at the first 25 minutes.
The first ten minutes of the film can be summarized as, “at some point
a few hundred years ago, the Earth was warmer and things were great!
Maybe things will be great again!”. At about 01:30 into the film it is
said that, “none of the major changes in the past 1000 years can be
explained by carbon dioxide”. This statement is extremely misleading
in the context of geological time and just because this statement is
true over this time scale does not mean that it is true over other
time scales; this kind of statement would require additional analysis
before being put forward and it is not made clear that such causality
was investigated. The bolstering of the many accomplishments of the
industrial revolution also make for some nice fluff that one could
guess aims to downplay the impact that these social changes may have
environmentally.
This documentary seems to refer to global average temperatures and
regional temperatures without differentiating the two. Pointing to a
“recent” interglacial period (~09:40) and stating that is was
“significantly” warmer than today is a big statistical no-no. As no
units for temperature are given, we the viewers can only see
qualitatively that it was warmer during this period. Was this
temperature difference really statistically significant? Was this
global mean temperature or just a region where data was recorded over
this period? I guess we’ll just have to hope that the producers have
good intentions and aren’t trying to mislead us.
Around ~10:30, global warming is referred to as a “theory”. This is
put forward without differentiating that in science, there is a
hierarchy to ideas (hypothesis, theory, etc.). Referring to something
as a “theory” is a tactic that has been used by others (i.e. those
promoting Intelligent Design to discredit the “theory” of evolution,
which happens to be well supported by actual data) when in reality a
standing theory usually has the distinction of being well-supported by
experimental evidence. These types of semantic games can easily
confuse a viewer.
Around 12 minutes, the “hole in global warming” trends due to sulfate
aerosols are discussed as if global warming theories rely solely on
carbon dioxide to explain warming trends and thus should be simply
explained by industrial production records. This over simplification
of a complex system (for example leaving out how a key geochemical
cycle called the carbon cycle works) is dishonest and attempts to lead
the viewer to the conclusion that scientists are attempting to pull
the wool over their eyes. What they conveniently leave out is that
fact that the sulfate aerosols released into the atmosphere by World
War II (a little skirmish everyone may have heard of) led to an
overall cooling effect. This may appear to some people to be counter
initiative because CO2 concentrations are still increasing however
sulfate cooling easily explains away the observed data. Furthermore,
mentioning that some scientists in the 70s and 80s predicated a coming
ice age due to this trend further tries to show people, “look at these
crazy scientists! First we are going to freeze and then they change
their minds!”. But factoring in aerosols into climate modeling is
never discussed! They just move on as if science has failed to account
for this! But this is exactly how science works! You find that
something doesn’t fit, you find the reason and adjust your hypothesis
and re-test it to see if you were correct!
Next up (around 13:30) they discuss that CO2 is a very small part of
the atmosphere (measured in parts per million! How can something so
small have any effect?!) and that other greenhouse gases as a whole
are also a “small part of the atmospheric gases”. Again, this is
another over simplification because they fail to mention how
greenhouse gases work in such a way that explains feedback mechanisms.
This “it is so small! How can it make a difference” is a textbook
denial tactic. Furthermore, they point to water as an important
greenhouse gas but neglect to mention that most water is liquid at the
temperatures being discussed! (so should sea water temperature be
mentioned here?) This is an important omission at this point in the
film because water (both liquid and vapor) have a tremendous capacity
to absorb heat (this is why we use water to cool nuclear reactors and
steam to move heat through buildings).
Around 20 minutes they start discussing the apparent lag in CO2
concentrations following temperature observed in data from that past
few hundred thousand years and reach the conclusion that CO2 could not
have caused the observed warming. This, however, may or may NOT apply
to current warming trends. The audience is lead to believe that
because it applied over that time interval, it must therefore apply
today. “The fundamental assuming that climate change is due to humans
is shown to be wrong” (or something like that at around 21:45). No.
Just no. Over the time period being discussed here, human CO2
emissions were due to breathing, not industry. So discounting
anthropogenic global warming by looking at a trend that applied when
there was ZERO industrial activity is not valid. This is like
comparing apples to musk melon. Of course, then they tack on that CO2
is a “natural gas used by all living things” so therefore it can’t be
a pollutant. There are so many problems with this statement. Phosgene
is a natural substance so how can it be toxic?!
Around 22:30 they discuss how more CO2 is produced by volcanoes and
the respiration of bacteria and animals and so on. They AGAIN fail to
talk about how very subtle changes in CO2 concentration can upset the
balance of the carbon cycle (the rate of CO2 fixation versus the rate
of CO2 release).
I’m going to pause here at 25:30 because I have to get to the
University to further propagate the conspiracy. I’ll get to the rest
this evening :)
associated with the global conspiracy of scientists charged with
hoodwinking folks. I must admit though, I haven’t been getting my hush
money so I guess it’s okay if I take part.
What an amazing piece of propaganda. I first saw this “documentary”
about 3 years ago and I was absolutely astounded that this piece was
ever broadcast. Upon a second viewing I noticed some serious problems
with the presentation. I watched it again last night for kicks and
took some notes this time. It is amazing how anything dressed up in
the documentary format will pass with relatively little scrutiny when
shown to the general populace.
One of the major problems with discussing global warming is the amount
of basic scientific knowledge needed discuss the shear volume of
topics needed just to get a good picture of global climate. To add
insult to injury, our planet is a very complex system and in our
western society, science literacy (i.e. not just memorizing science
facts) is an afterthought. Add to this the idea that the apparent
middle between two sides of a “debate” must be the truth is unhelpful
as it allows one side to move goal posts to the point of lunacy in
order to manipulate popular opinion.
My major issues with the intellectual integrity of this work basically
boils down to the following problems: cherry picking arguments, taking
quotes out of context (the Wikipedia page details this so I won’t go
into it), the use of half-truths, vague generalizations, and
misleading data representation. Also included is some rather clever
emotional manipulation such as the charge that concerns over global
warming is being used to prevent (sub-Saharan) African nations from
developing (as if global warming scare tactics are used in a
premeditated way). From a historical context this is quite interesting
given the rampant and quite deliberate exploitation of African peoples
by colonial powers and large multinational corporations. This appeal
to emotion is one of the same tactics used by the so-called “militant”
environmentalists groups to scare people. Boiling pot calling the
kettle black detected! The presentation of a false choice between
using a solar panel to run a light bulb or an appliance is utter
pandering to emotion based on nonsense.
Another major issue is the failure to present relevant information to
inform the viewer regarding some of the complexity of what is being
discussed and relying on anecdotal evidence to make points without
providing data sources or problems with actually collecting and
interpreting the data. For example, when the cartoony graphics
explaining how greenhouse gas-based global warming works, the
producers conveniently leave out the reflectivity of ice sheets due to
the difference in opacity of frozen versus liquid water. Of course
they move right on so you do not even miss it unless you’ve spent a
lot of time examining “the debate”.
Also, the use of only dissenting scientists in this piece is rather
alarming (although Carl Wunsch and others have said their statements
were taken out of context) as it helps frame the debate as there being
a lack of consensus among scientists. Rather, the debate among MOST
(but not all) scientists seems to be more about modeling methods and
the details of climate change than the phenomenon itself.
Historically, climate change/global warming (another semantic game
invented by pollsters because “climate change” was shown by polling
data to be “less scary; I will use the terms interchangeably, however)
deniers have pointed to Dr. Richard Muller (a physicist and devote
skeptic of all things from University of California Berkeley) as being
a devote naysayer on global warming frequently pointing to problems
with temperature data and so forth. Dr. Muller conducted a study
funded by Koch Industries (an oil company who have a massive anti-
global warming agenda for financial and political purposes) and
concluded that global warming is supported by the scientific data.
While this one case of a climate change skeptic changing his mind is
admittedly anecdotal, I think it certainly illustrates how looking at
the data objectively can lead you to a conclusion you may emotionally
feel compelled to reject.
Also, the program in general uses the tactic of appealing to basic
misconceptions and general mindsets that people may have. Examples
include appealing to simplicity (“there must be a simple, all
encompassing explanation”), a distrust of authority (“the people in
white lab coats and the government folks in suits are trying to screw
us!”), small is insignificant, and this idea that anything that is
apparently contradictory must be wrong or nonsense (“things can’t get
warmer AND colder?! That’s like saying light is both a particle and a
wave!).
Something else that I noticed is martyring of supposedly opposing
skeptical voices in the “climate change debate”. This is an aspect of
science that is frequently misunderstood. Scientists that stick to
assertions that are not supported by the evidence are quite different
from maintaining a skeptical attitude (such as the aforementioned
Richard Muller). Doggedly maintaining unsupported positions leads to
pseudoscience which can lead to fraud and quackery which is not
tolerated in the arena of fact-seeking. The film, however, makes it
sound as if scientists holding non-scientific beliefs are actively
persecuted although NO EVIDENCE is ever given to support such claims.
Such supporting evidence, if it exists, might include denial of
funding based upon bias towards the author rather than the merit of
ideas, firing from academic posts (which only happens under the most
egregious of circumstances), or the circulation of black lists. Should
such evidence of persecution of people based upon belief exist in the
scientific community, that would be evidence of major bias and
unscientific conduct in its own right! Is there any such evidence?
Apparently not otherwise it should be in the bloody film!
Anyway, on to a critical look at the first 25 minutes.
The first ten minutes of the film can be summarized as, “at some point
a few hundred years ago, the Earth was warmer and things were great!
Maybe things will be great again!”. At about 01:30 into the film it is
said that, “none of the major changes in the past 1000 years can be
explained by carbon dioxide”. This statement is extremely misleading
in the context of geological time and just because this statement is
true over this time scale does not mean that it is true over other
time scales; this kind of statement would require additional analysis
before being put forward and it is not made clear that such causality
was investigated. The bolstering of the many accomplishments of the
industrial revolution also make for some nice fluff that one could
guess aims to downplay the impact that these social changes may have
environmentally.
This documentary seems to refer to global average temperatures and
regional temperatures without differentiating the two. Pointing to a
“recent” interglacial period (~09:40) and stating that is was
“significantly” warmer than today is a big statistical no-no. As no
units for temperature are given, we the viewers can only see
qualitatively that it was warmer during this period. Was this
temperature difference really statistically significant? Was this
global mean temperature or just a region where data was recorded over
this period? I guess we’ll just have to hope that the producers have
good intentions and aren’t trying to mislead us.
Around ~10:30, global warming is referred to as a “theory”. This is
put forward without differentiating that in science, there is a
hierarchy to ideas (hypothesis, theory, etc.). Referring to something
as a “theory” is a tactic that has been used by others (i.e. those
promoting Intelligent Design to discredit the “theory” of evolution,
which happens to be well supported by actual data) when in reality a
standing theory usually has the distinction of being well-supported by
experimental evidence. These types of semantic games can easily
confuse a viewer.
Around 12 minutes, the “hole in global warming” trends due to sulfate
aerosols are discussed as if global warming theories rely solely on
carbon dioxide to explain warming trends and thus should be simply
explained by industrial production records. This over simplification
of a complex system (for example leaving out how a key geochemical
cycle called the carbon cycle works) is dishonest and attempts to lead
the viewer to the conclusion that scientists are attempting to pull
the wool over their eyes. What they conveniently leave out is that
fact that the sulfate aerosols released into the atmosphere by World
War II (a little skirmish everyone may have heard of) led to an
overall cooling effect. This may appear to some people to be counter
initiative because CO2 concentrations are still increasing however
sulfate cooling easily explains away the observed data. Furthermore,
mentioning that some scientists in the 70s and 80s predicated a coming
ice age due to this trend further tries to show people, “look at these
crazy scientists! First we are going to freeze and then they change
their minds!”. But factoring in aerosols into climate modeling is
never discussed! They just move on as if science has failed to account
for this! But this is exactly how science works! You find that
something doesn’t fit, you find the reason and adjust your hypothesis
and re-test it to see if you were correct!
Next up (around 13:30) they discuss that CO2 is a very small part of
the atmosphere (measured in parts per million! How can something so
small have any effect?!) and that other greenhouse gases as a whole
are also a “small part of the atmospheric gases”. Again, this is
another over simplification because they fail to mention how
greenhouse gases work in such a way that explains feedback mechanisms.
This “it is so small! How can it make a difference” is a textbook
denial tactic. Furthermore, they point to water as an important
greenhouse gas but neglect to mention that most water is liquid at the
temperatures being discussed! (so should sea water temperature be
mentioned here?) This is an important omission at this point in the
film because water (both liquid and vapor) have a tremendous capacity
to absorb heat (this is why we use water to cool nuclear reactors and
steam to move heat through buildings).
Around 20 minutes they start discussing the apparent lag in CO2
concentrations following temperature observed in data from that past
few hundred thousand years and reach the conclusion that CO2 could not
have caused the observed warming. This, however, may or may NOT apply
to current warming trends. The audience is lead to believe that
because it applied over that time interval, it must therefore apply
today. “The fundamental assuming that climate change is due to humans
is shown to be wrong” (or something like that at around 21:45). No.
Just no. Over the time period being discussed here, human CO2
emissions were due to breathing, not industry. So discounting
anthropogenic global warming by looking at a trend that applied when
there was ZERO industrial activity is not valid. This is like
comparing apples to musk melon. Of course, then they tack on that CO2
is a “natural gas used by all living things” so therefore it can’t be
a pollutant. There are so many problems with this statement. Phosgene
is a natural substance so how can it be toxic?!
Around 22:30 they discuss how more CO2 is produced by volcanoes and
the respiration of bacteria and animals and so on. They AGAIN fail to
talk about how very subtle changes in CO2 concentration can upset the
balance of the carbon cycle (the rate of CO2 fixation versus the rate
of CO2 release).
I’m going to pause here at 25:30 because I have to get to the
University to further propagate the conspiracy. I’ll get to the rest
this evening :)
Hugrún Jónsdóttir Scully
Dec 26, 2011, 5:27:09 AM12/26/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Thank you husband, for your scientific input in this discussion :) There is a reason I ask you to answer some things for me, because I simply don't have the knowledge (or the vocabulary) to say what you just said.
See you later tonight :)
See you later tonight :)
2011/12/26 Sean Scully <lepton...@gmail.com>
hrei...@mi.is
Dec 26, 2011, 8:16:39 AM12/26/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Thankst for this input Sean. I admit that I did not read all of it.
This is due to my short attention span but not because the material is
boring. I will finish is later. All my best to all of you :-)
This is due to my short attention span but not because the material is
boring. I will finish is later. All my best to all of you :-)
Hreiðar
On 26.12.2011 10:27, Hugrún Jónsdóttir Scully wrote:
> Thank you husband, for your scientific input in this discussion :)
> There is a reason I ask you to answer some things for me, because I
> simply don't have the knowledge (or the vocabulary) to say what you
> just said.
>
> See you later tonight :)
>
> 2011/12/26 Sean Scully
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:lepton...@gmail.com
Davíð Ólafsson
Dec 26, 2011, 3:06:19 PM12/26/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Thank you Sean for your input on this subject!.....i read through all of it and found it very interesting. On the other hand though i must admitte that i am missing something, and that is hard evidence. In the documentary they are coming up with some facts (they say that they are facts) and its not just in this documentary because recently i read an article from russia where their main theary about global warming is said to be because of the effects of the sun on the earth. But what i would really like to see is something of a more hard evidence that can repute what they are stating as facts or theories. I am not a scientist and i don´t have that background, i am merely a person who is pussled about all this debait and really like to find ,,the truth". So, why on earth is it not possible to really investigate in to this subject and to take the ,,hard evedences" from those who denay that global warming is caused by men and then to compare them to the findings of those scientist that are saying that global warming is increased by the doings of men??
Greetings
David
Greetings
David
Ólafur Taylor Eðvarðsson
Dec 26, 2011, 3:08:12 PM12/26/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
odinn trastarsson vill vera ,med a kalimat odi...@gmail.com :)
Sean Scully
Dec 26, 2011, 3:55:55 PM12/26/11
to Bahai_umræða
I was poking around and I found a list of some of the most commonly
used (and debunked) myths used by global warming skeptics. Not
surprisingly, many of these myths are put forth as fact in "The Great
Global Warming Swindle".
Link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
used (and debunked) myths used by global warming skeptics. Not
surprisingly, many of these myths are put forth as fact in "The Great
Global Warming Swindle".
Link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Sean Scully
Dec 26, 2011, 3:58:43 PM12/26/11
to Bahai_umræða
Davíð Ólafsson
Dec 26, 2011, 6:12:35 PM12/26/11
to bahai_...@googlegroups.com
Thank´s Sean!....this was really good to read! I finished reading through it and i must say that it surprised me. The arguments that the skeptics are using aren´t all that good as i was beginning to think! Its really good to have a scientist among the groupmembers like you.
Greetings
David
Greetings
David
Þann 26. desember 2011 20:58, skrifaði Sean Scully <lepton...@gmail.com>:
Also available in Icelandic... http://www.skepticalscience.com/translation.php?lang=8
On Dec 26, 8:55 pm, Sean Scully <leptonsoup...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was poking around and I found a list of some of the most commonly
> used (and debunked) myths used by global warming skeptics. Not
> surprisingly, many of these myths are put forth as fact in "The Great
> Global Warming Swindle"
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages