Daminxa
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 16:33
|
|
Well where would my knowledge of horticulture be without a bit of a science background eh? ;-p
|
dee
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 16:36
|
|
Precisely!! My only hagup re science is when they reckon how the universe began etc...what the fuck!!
|
dee
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 16:37
|
|
Oops...hangup!!
|
Daminxa
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 16:40
|
|
What the big bang? Yeah, can't claim to have got my head round that one myself either, but then it makes no less sense than God making the world in seven days! There is a lot of scientific evidence pointing towards the Universe beginning with a massive explosion, but nobody has ever been able to explain WHY it happened, even if they do claim to know how.
|
dee
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 17:17
|
|
Sure beats the hell outta me, sista!!
|
DarkMagus
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 18:30
|
|
Your level of arguement says more than I possibly could.....
|
DarkMagus
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 18:39
|
The problem is how the consensus came about and a concensus isn't always right. In the history of science it generally takes a generation for paradigms to be replaced. This may be what is starting now. Who knows? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.
The concensus for decades was that stomach ulcers were caused by acid and stress. It took a long time for the ulcer industry to accept that infection was really the most common cause.
It's most interesting that no one here has actually put forward anything to refute the claims of the many professors in the film. I'd really like to here that.
|
DarkMagus
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 18:56
|
Well, I've really got no horses in this race as should be clear. If you think the film was bullshit regarding causes of climate change, please help us all by pointing out where all those professors got it wrong. i.e. address the points in the film specifically r.e. CO2 vs sun activity theories. I'd genuinely like to here such arguements. Merrick totally failed to do this, resorting to selective cheap shots. An easy tactic in debate, but not a pretty one.
What I found most interesting was the way the film skewered the left and the right. Perhaps this is what is hurting peoples feelings as much as having a cherished belief (apparently) debunked... This may have been a deliberate ploy to raise as many hackles as possible.
|
PMM
|
Edited Mar 09, 2007, 19:23
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 19:20
|
No. And the reason I have no intention of arguing the issues with you, dark magus, is because I've already seen that when people do take the time to contradict the points you make - intelligently, and coherently, you then repeat your original statements, and claim that they dont understand. So it's pointless.
Why respond to vybic jon's post rather than merrick's? I dont think you really have much interest in "debating"
edit: Oh I see you did respond by dismissing merricks comments as cheap, while at the same time criticising others for the standard of debate.
Goodbye.
|
DarkMagus
|
Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Mar 09, 2007, 19:34
|
This will be my last word as an explanation for the previous thread (which turned into a joke) which some people couldn't figure out.
I stated my belief that the man made CO2 theory couldn't be proved and it was pointless people putting forward their evidence to me. I specifically said don't bother. People then did exactly this COMPLETELY missing the point. Doh! It IS stupid arguing with someone who has said it is their belief that something is not within our power to determine. cf existence of god. Maybe you understand now, maybe not. I really don't care.
|
