Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Opinion please

There are some knowledgeable ppl here, me as a "don't know", looking at both sides, I came across this site http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html , what is your take on it? Some is plainly hypothesis but some makes a lot of sense to the average Joey.
Seems to have been written by a biologist.

As a non-expert, the best one can do is use one's own judgement regarding the validity of data and the conclusions drawn. A useful criterion is 'credibility'.

Samples of text from the same website:

From "Velocity of Light"
Supposedly, nothing can move faster than the velocity of light, because relativity says so. How can relativity say so? Physicist simply wrote an equation which limits any velocity to that of light and called it relativity. It would be like writing an equation which limits the velocity of an automobile to 70 mph and then saying no car can travel faster than 70 mph because the equation says so."
_____

From "Big Bang Theory"
The big bang does the same things God does, except God does it through the laws of physics, and the big bang doesn't...This result stems from the motive of disproving a creator."
_____

From "Heat in the Earth's Core"

Compare the first paragraph:

"It is not known why the earth's core is hot, but there are lines of evidence. The changing thickness of the earth's crust indicates a constant cooling, which indicates that the heat was created at the beginning of the earth's formation."

with the last paragraph:

"It's quite significant that a large number of coral reefs are dying from over-heating. Humans are not causing the oceans to over-heat; it appears to be caused by heat from the earth's core."
_____

Make your own judgement on that site's credibility.

Hmm. Would have expected a little more. Am I unreasonable?

No, not unreasonable. In fact there is more. A lot more. Just peruse the other threads about climate change. You might then gain an insight into why I don't usually respond to postings on the subject. I've made a brief exception in your case, as I have no reason to believe that you are yet another troll trying to flog the subject to death by fair means or foul.

Well YOYO I visited the linked site and it is a joke.

Lets assume the site's premise is correct for a moment. And answer a couple of questions.

1. Is the ocean warming uniformly or is there a gradient?
2. If there is a gradient where is it warming first?
3. What is the source of the energy causing the observed warming?
4. How can increasing CO2 in the atmosphere violate the laws of physics and chemistry and not absorb heat?

The graph, at the top of the page is the very definition of crackpot science. It was compiled from what research? and by whom? when? where?

The reference to the impressive sounding Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a reference to two guys in a garage who take their mail at a post office box in Cave Junction Oregon. And if you've never been to Cave Junction I recommend looking at it so here's a picture:
http://www.city-data.com:3000/cpicv/vfiles22854.jpg

Before believing things ... check them out.

"Before believing things ... check them out."
That's what I'm doing. It would be a waste of time going to an "anti" group, they would just give nodding agreement.
Regarding co2, it is fractional compared to the effects of water vapour, that I already learned from all over the net. Or is that nonsense?
Not a scientist and not a troll. I do have Internet (obviously) which lets me find conflicting info. It is then up to me to make my mind up.
I watched this earlier today. It makes a lot of sense.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
It is still weather forecasting and everyone knows how imprecise that is.
As an unbiased reader I am definitely leaning towards, "It is the con of the century" and it's only 2007. I won't be selling my waterfront property just yet, I'll wait for the dust to settle and the full truth to emerge.
Thanks for the replies.

Go for you for checking things out.

But when looking at an argument such as the link you posted ask yourself questions such as these:

1. There is a graph here without attribution? Why? Where did it come from? Who created it? When? Based on what data? Does it correspond with reality as published in articles at reputable colleges and universities?

2. When seeing the link to an institution you don't recognize check out its credentials. No need to ask about Stanford or Oxford but the reference is, literally, to two guys in a garage.
And if someone links to crackpots rather than a college or university or reputable lab (CERN, Argonne, Lawrence Livermore) then you need to ask why.

3. If the oceans are heating up you only have a small number of possibilities.

3A. From the bottom up ... not happening.
3B. At arbitrary points at varying depths ... not possible.
3C. Uniformly ... not happening.
3D. From the top down ... which is happening.

So the next question is what can heat the upper most layers of hte ocean and there are only two possibilities:

3D1. A warmer atmosphere.
3D2. Increasing absorption of solar energy.

Measurements of the sun's energy output establish clearly, and unequivocally, that it is not capable of creating the affects observed.

Why are so many people putting so much energy into denying the obvious? We are fouling our nest. And unlike birds we can not fly away.

http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html