On Tue January 29 2008 03:19:33 am kanenas@hawaii.rr.com wrote:
Our 0.15% contribution to greenhouse gasses does nothing to warm the planet
that is as asinine are Gore's propaganda. Where on earth is there space for some truth?
Right here. Thanks for asking! :-) note: "AIT" = An Inconvenient Truth - - - - - 8< - - - - - The England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions: Justice Burton: " I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ii) As Mr Chamberlain [note: the *Plaintiff*] persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton: “The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC: (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (”climate change”); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (”greenhouse gases”); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects." - - - - - 8< - - - - - Now, a closer look at the opposition: - - - - - 8< - - - - - "Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film - Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth" http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html - - - - - 8< - - - - - I do not understand your meaning, below. Be more precise and succinct. (I don't know you, or your motivations, but "muddying the waters" is a common tactic of the right. IOW, sowing confusion into the debate, like this: a) appearing to agree with both sides, b) leading up to clear conclusions then stating the opposite, c) incorporating vague and maladapted analogies, etc. Is this what you are engaging in?)
Mainstream media and government have had decades of opportunity to <blather snipped> reasoning and words about global warming?
Then came "Against Nature," a documentary which aired on the BBC which then had to issue a public apology for showing it.
Get some SCIENCE not blather, Fred. And PLEASE post to the list!
I absolutely agree. <more blather snipped>
Then leave it there!
wannabe a real conservative?
What is the scientific definition of "conservative"? I am engaged here in an exchange concerning established scientific method and facts vs. politically motivated and dishonest junk and pseudo science. Give me science, please, and stuff your politics! Carl -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org