>Cover story from The Spectator: >Prepare for the big chill >"A new ice age is due now, says Andrew Kenny, but you won't hear it from >the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make >us believe in global warming" >http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&iss >ue=2002-06-22&id=1977 > >It seems like too long an article to reasonably request point-by-point >interaction, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on 1) what are the >article's weakest points, and 2) if any, what are the article's >redeeming or strongest points (in other words, do you feel the author >has any valid points?) > >-- Chris Witmer >Tokyo
Mr Witmer ... "the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine"??? Well, that's about what I'd expect from Mr Kenny. He likes writing this sort of stuff - Africans were better off under colonialism, and so on. And it's easy, much easier than doing a real job. He too would benefit from Mark Twain's advice that Ramjee quoted, but that's not how he makes his living. Kenny's not a scientist, nor even a science writer, just a hack. Anyway, I don't think we want any further posts from you on this subject until you've dealt with the trail of unfinished business you've left in your wake. Try some "point-by-point interaction" yourself instead of snipping anything that gives you indigestion and then returning to it later like this when you think the dust has died down. It has already been pointed out that: - The difference between an ice age and global warming might seem rather large, but the difference between the two sets of factors which might cause them is rather slight. - By far the major part of the 70s thesis was that climate change with human industrial cause promised catastrophe, which is also the major claim today. - That the excerpt you quoted from Newsweek (not Time magazine?) of April 28, 1975 stands up well today. I also said: "I don't think the ice-age scenario has yet been finally disproved, it's just become more and more unlikely as the evidence has mounted overwhelmingly on the side of warming. The inconsistency you keep pointing to just isn't there." So in fact the substance of the Kenny article has already been posted, without the shit-stirring - if you didn't see fit to respond to that, then why are you posting this? Now go back into the archives, like you've just made me do, find the full references and respond to them. That or forfeit any claim to presenting an honest argument (which is the only kind acceptable here). More questions - why are you now presenting an article that supports the Ice Age when previously you sneered at such predictions as well as those of global warming - as well as the article linking pollution and drought? Because it doesn't matter to you perhaps? This is what you're on about, isn't it? "... the Greens, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism..." You'll commandeer anything that highlights that. Well, sorry, but we dealt with that too, right back at the beginning, and you didn't respond to that either. Stop these sneak attacks Mr Witmer. Discuss honestly and openly, or not at all. I'll have a point-by-point response from you please, to this and the other responses you've ignored, before you post anything further on this subject. Include full references for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration study and the NASA study you cited, as well as a reference for your quote from Alton Chase, and his references. Keith Addison ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
