The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.
As far as the bad examples go, I can see the problems you have with the man
made climate change.
I would suppose some rubbish has been put in to discredit the other logical
stuff...
Its been done before.



"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do
with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is called
guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A,
therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not the
only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer periods
over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the current
cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly debunked.
The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention
there is a good case against him, much less explain the case against his
view, tells me that the author is not even handed and looking for truth
but pushing an agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

Jonno wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets
people thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has
nothing to do with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The
trick is called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish,
assume B is like A, therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the
sun canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it
is thought that solar forcing is a component of climate
change it is not the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of
ice ages and warmer periods over millions of years - the sun. However the
claim that the current cycle of warming is entirely due
to the sun has been roundly debunked. The fact that they quote this
Marusek as gospel and fail to even mention there is a good case
against him, much less explain the case against his view, tells me
that the author is not even handed and looking for truth but pushing
an agenda.
If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading sources
other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

The truth is always surrounded by some mistruth.
You have to wade thru a lot of crap to get to the truth.
At least I was looking.

More than many citizens are doing. Have you considered also reading
sources other than from contrarians and lobbyists?

David

If you could come up with something we may get there.

As was aid in the monty python sketch

An argument isnt simply about being contrary, which you your self are being
at times.

The trouble is, I believe in a lot of that stuff, as it does not involve
mass taxation.

It also involves a lot of scientists, who are no longer working for the
government it seems, and not covered by the secrets act or a financial
disadvantage if they dont toe the government line. It does concern me though
that some of these guys may not have been voluntarily retired, and have a
case of sour grapes.
But I would think the majority of them have their scientific data intact and
have no axe to grind.
Otherwise confusion reigns as we are the meat in the middle.
What if we are in a state of "overheating" which seems rather odd, as a lack
of warmth is usually the way the planet wipes itself out, but never
completely it seems.
What if its the reverse, IE global cooling.
If it is the sunspot cycle about to go into a flux reversal, and that means
a cooling period, or worse an ice age. What then?
No body knows, and all this sceince has ever done is eventually come up with
answers.
Its all very clear in hindsight.
Satelites, in many cases they dont even know what previous data hundreds of
years ago meant.
Al lthe scinetists ca ndo is take an less than educated guess.
Well the politicians are not above with running with anything they can use
to their advantage....