[Geology2] Re: your opinions

Okay, I'm willing to consider that. Give me some examples of things on Skepticalscience that are incorrect or objectionable.

What about RealClimate.?

What is Judith Curry's site?

I don't know what you mean by "both sides" but I don't think that meeting in the middle between opposites necessarily lands on the truth.

Just checked whatsupwiththat since I hadn't seen it before. To me it doen't look like an opposite pole of skepticalscience. There is a lot more soft science/generalized stuff there, some of it snarky. It's okay, but not the kind of place I would go to find answers. Judith Curry had an entry railing about the use of "denier" as derogatory, and then called Al Gore an outrageous buffoon. Science lesson for the day.

It sounds like your conception of the AGW sites is that their function should be to serve as a forum for debate. They do that, and it is valuable but it isn't their only function or maybe even their primary one. There are certain aspects and points of fact about climate change that have been reasonably resolved, and are the basis on which further work can proceed, and on which we can build greater understanding - but only if we accept them as such. The site is a storehouse of that information for those who want to understand the science. That does not mean that someone will not dispute them and want to debate them, even after they are part of generally accepted knowledge. At that point, the advocates of the established knowledge can be seen as the "defenders" or those with entrenched opinions, who are politicized or fighting against open debate. They have accepted those ideas because the sum of their knowledge (along with their temperament) tells them it is correct, and there is no longer any need to go over the same ground again. There must be a stopping point if we ever want to move forward.





--- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, Tricks <richard.tyndall@...> wrote:
>
> Skepticalscience is by no means a good site to recommend for an accurate or
> honest debate on climate issues. It is the polar (if you will excuse the
> pun) opposite of Wattsupwiththat and neither should be considered in any
> way a good place to learn the pros and cons of the argument. Both are blogs
> set up by entrenched opinion which are only interested in putting their own
> side rather than in open debate or promoting new ideas.
>
>
>
> There are a number of scientists out in the blogosphere who are trying to
> take a reasoned line on the whole issue of climate change - basically
> accepting the current thinking whilst trying to test any alternative ideas
> or point up holes in the arguments put by each side. Probably the best
> example would be Judith Curry who takes continual stick from both sides
> because she likes to point out inconvenient facts that don't help either
> side of the argument.
>
>
>
> The problem is that such people are few and far between because it takes a
> strong will and a lot of hard work as a scientist to follow a scientific
> course when the whole issue has been so politicised.
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: geology2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:geology2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of fossrme
> Sent: 16 August 2013 21:12
> To: geology2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Geology2] Re: your opinions
>
>
>
>
>
> Plimer is wrong about a lot of things. See
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-
> versus-george-monbiot
>
> There is a good site that answers all the common questions about global
> climate change and is always kept up to date. I've learned a lot from it
> about the issues. Take a look:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> --- In geology2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:geology2%40yahoogroups.com> , "Roger
> Steinberg" <roger.steinberg@> wrote:
> >
> > I was sent this and would appreciate your opinions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Some say he is a "nut" but may be it is the "kings New Clothes Syndrome"
> he
> > could have some thing I have heard a lot of it before and you only get
> money
> > from big business and government if you are doing research into PROVING
> that
> > global warming exists not the opposite.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Author's credentials:
> >
> > Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor
> > emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of
> > mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple
>
> > mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific
> > papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
> >
> >
> >
> > Born
> > 12 February 1946 (age 67)
> >
> > Residence
> > Australia
> >
> > Nationality
> > Australian
> >
> > Fields
> > Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
> >
> > Institutions
> > University of New England,University of Newcastle,University
> > of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
> >
> > Alma mater
> > University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
> >
> > Thesis
> > The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern
> > Australia (1976)
> >
> > Notable awards
> > Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke
> > Medal (2004)
> >
> >
> > Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
> >
> > Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
> > If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in
> > Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS,
> > NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to
> > control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
> >
> > Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are
> > trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant
> > requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and
> > all animal life.
> >
> > I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the
> > carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the
> > inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery
> > bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution"
> > science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies,
> using
> > only two squares of
> > toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your
> > SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting
> hit
> > every day on your bicycle, replacing all of
> > your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those
> > things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
> >
> > The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four
> > days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased
> > every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And
> > there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud
> > at any one time - EVERY DAY.
> >
> > I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should
> > mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in
> > 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the
> > entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
> >
> > Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
> > One year - think about it.
> >
> > Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging'
> > moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the
> > well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps
> > happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to
> > affect climate change.
> >
> > And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud,
> > but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western
>
> > USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce
> > carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every
> > year.
> >
> > Just remember that your government just tried to impose a
> > whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused'
> > climate-change scenario.
> >
> > Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming'
> > Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
> >
> > It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past
> > century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants
> > down.
> >
> > And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions
> > Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve
> > absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
> >
> > It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure."
> >
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geology2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geology2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
geology2-digest@yahoogroups.com
geology2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
geology2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/