>Interesting cross post from gasification. Oh come on Weaver, we've scotched this brand of BS here so many times before. what's interesting about it???
Keith >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [Strawbale] Global warming >Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:14:34 -0600 >From: David Neeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Ron Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: SB REPP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I think it's interesting the amount of religious-like acceptance of >either a belief in human contribution to a supposed global warming, or >a rejection that such a thing is even happening at all. > >A very few years ago, there were serious scientific discussions and >popular magazine covers regarding global *cooling* and an "approaching >ice age." Now, the existence of global warming prompts "scientists" to >attempt to drum out of the corps of science those who dare question >the current cant--that "of course" we have global warming and "of >course" we humans are contributing to it. > >Best as I can tell, evidence on all sides is most definitely mixed. >There is a fairly good argument that cooling and warming trends have >existed since long before humans were around at all. > >Local weather conditions, too, are at best highly unreliable guides. >Some areas are "warming" while others have record snows (as in >Anchorage at the moment). > >Personally, the only thing I am convinced of is that change is >inevitable. I tend to think we've been in the rather balmy period >between ice ages and that sooner or later we are likely to have >another one. > >Interestingly enough, the geological record seems to indicate that >when an ice age comes upon the earth, we go from a climate similar to >ours now to ice covering a good part of the Northern and Southern >hemispheres in about fifty years--less than an eyeblink in geological >terms. > >To assert that "whose who question global warming have a financial or >personal interest in the status quo", though, is the height of >arrogance. I, for one, have no stake either financial or personal in >the issue beyond an obvious interest in trying to determine the truth >and the consequences it may present to me and my family. > >In the Dark Ages, the particular religious cant that could not be >questioned was the prevailing religious tenets that "everyone" >believed. Today, it seems to be global warming and its frequent >pseudo-scientific corollary that this is something that no serious >person can or should question. > >That, friends, is BS. The *first* tenet of science is that every >assertion can and must be questioned over and over again to find areas >in which it may lack in rigor and in which the notion may be refined >to more closely fit the observed facts. > >So--kindly don't try to enforce such claptrap upon me or upon anyone >who attempts to arrive over time at better approximations of the >truth. Trying to relegate us to motives that may be self-serving or >venal only goes so far, mostly upon the equally addle-pated that >ascribe evil motives to any who don't readily agree with whatever your >particular orthodoxy of the moment might be. > >David > > > >On 2/3/07, Ron Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ron > > Those who question global warming have a financial or emotional > > interest in the status quo. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
