Text 1843, 67 rader
Skriven 2006-06-05 16:10:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2289.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <448476a7$1@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <eni1825114unuquhhudp5jv3j28kf1kmtg@4ax.com>
Josh Hill wrote:
>>to be out of practical human control.
> 
> 
> But it isn't. This is a recitation of oil company propaganda, not
> science. You know, I try to be open-minded, but when I read stuff like
> this I hate the Republican Party and conservatism with a passion. I've
> seen Democrats and liberals make plenty of mistakes and bad
> assumptions over the years, including yes, chicken little doomsaying
> about this or that environmental trend, but nothing as in-your-face
> malign. It's the tobacco companies denying that smoking causes cancer
> all over again, only this time, the issue is far more serious and the
> industry a lot cleverer: it doesn't put its name on the phony
> institutes and scientists that spout the lies, just pays their bills
> and fills the campaign coffers of its bought-and-paid-for Republican
> politicians. It is nothing more than a war of lies against the planet,
> against the /people/ of the planet, in the name of corporate profit.
> 

Ok, I am going to regret this, again, but I can't stand it anymore...

Josh,
You have a bad habit of saying "My sources are all fair, unbiased 
organizations with no spin or vested interest" and all contrary sources 
are shills for the evil oil-polluter-industrial-whatever companies.

What you apparently refuse to see is that the organizations you quote, 
while large, official, and very, very authoritive, also have a HUGE 
interest in getting the public to think this is a major issue - THIS IS 
HOW THEY GET THEIR FUNDING INCREASED!

Now, I am sure that you believe no self respecting scientist would slant 
their research, or the interpretation of their research in to a specific 
policy direction, but you maybe have never worked in academia, where 
much of this research is generated.  I, on the other had, have.  If the 
NOAA thinks that there is human caused global warming, ubetcha my 
research will support that.  Even if the evidence is marginal at best, I 
can always find a way to justify it.

Now, I admit that I am a couple of years out of this debate, directly. 
I got to meet and talk to a few of the researchers at the Earth Systems 
Sciences deptartment at UCI.  Basically, the actual results are iffy. 
There are some indications that there is human caused global warming, as 
well as human caused global cooling! There are factors in natural 
greenhouse gas emmisions, as well as the aircraft cloud covers that all 
go into the models, and what you get is anyone's guess.  And the guesses 
depend on what you want the results to be.  The grant money is in 
verifying global warming.  What results would you report when the 
answers you get are ambiguous at best?

Also, was listening to Gore yesterday on one of the Sunday newsies.  He 
was asked to justify some of his doom and gloom (The WTC memorial being 
underwater) when the consenses says it won't be anywhere near that bad. 
  His answer?  Well, the researchers don't actually KNOW it won't be 
that bad...

Charlie
      
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)