Text 11369, 79 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 18:35:10 av Amy Guskin (14807.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:26:15 -0500, Carl wrote
(in article <jcednX881avVH17YnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C1E8D41C0267A85CF0182648@news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:51:56 -0500, kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote
>> (in article <1170431516.602922.269060@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 10:03 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Part of their cynical campaign consists of convincing the public that
>>>> science has somehow been corrupted, while oh-so-honest politicians and
>>>> oil companies have quaffed at the grail of truth.
>>> 
>>> Sorta like Gore's movie in the opposite. "If all you have is a
>>> hammer, everything looks like a nail"   He's got an agenda and, like
>>> Bush, tends to work real hard to ignore any evidence that might be to
>>> the contrary. Damn humans!!<<
>> 
>> Where have you found credible evidence to the contrary of _any_ of the
>> information in Gore's film?  My understanding is that you (the universal
>> "you") haven't read widespread disputation of his facts because there 
>> _isn't_
>> any.  No one's been able to point to any one thing in the film and 
>> disprove
>> it.
> 
> It's difficult to disprove *predictions* before the fact, but that doesn't 
> make them true. <<

I'm talking about the actual, hard facts in the film.  Of course different 
people are going to draw different conclusions from the evidence, but many of 
the finest scientific minds in the world agree with Gore's conclusions...or 
think that the outcome is likely to be worse, sooner.

>> On Jan 18, the WSJ referenced the UN climate panel's report that expects a 1


> foot sea level rise over this century, rather than the 20 feet that Gore 
> predicts.  Does the panel *prove* the sea level won't rise 20 feet?  No, but 
> then again choose carefully which source you wish to claim as having 
> scientific validity. :)
> 
> Sure, the climate's changing.  We should minimize the negative damage as 
> much as is practical to do so.  That's the catch really...what's practical 
> to do. You *really* want to minimize the effects of humans on the planet? 
> Reduce the population by 2/3.   Of course that's not going to happen unless 
> there's a big war. <<

Hey, I've done my part -- I'm not having children.

>> All of the things that are practical and reasonable (and won't destroy the 
> economy) won't be enough to make much difference for a very long time.  That 
> doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the damage we cause, but get 
> past the "If we don't do this right now..." rhetoric  and accept that if GW 
> proponents are right, we're going to have to deal with it and everyone in 
> the US giving up cars completely and having solar panels and windmills in 
> our back yards won't prevent it.  <<

I think there are many things we can do that are practical and reasonable, 
but there are some strong lobbies -- the auto lobby and the oil lobby, 
particularly -- who have a vested interest in our _not_ doing those things.  
We could talk about "Who Killed the Electric Car?" next...  Do you know how 
many times I asked my Saturn dealer when _I_ could get an electric car all 
through the 90s?  Rather than take it as a serious suggestion, or note it 
down to pass along to corporate in Spring Hill, they usually just laughed, 
assuming I was making a joke.  Same thing when I asked about a hybrid, 
although now they're absurdly proud to tell me that they have a hybrid SUV, 
big whoop.  :-p

Amy
-- 
http://finessecontest.com/users/103106124311yYb3ll5C
Vote for me to be a Finesse hair model!
Direct link to a "10" vote for me: http://tinyurl.com/y49w3n
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)