-Caveat Lector-
YnrChyldzWyld wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Steve wrote:
> >> Now the liberals would have us believe that these predictions were wrong, and
> >> that the earth is getting hotter. But they don't have any real proof of this
> >> warming tread. The limited data base of ocean temps taken by satillite don't
> >> show a warming tread.
> >
> >Get your facts straight, for once, Bill, (and Nakano).
> >
> >Ocean temperatures have increased significantly.
THIS IS ALL IRRELEVANT NONSENSE. The earth's glaciers and ice caps are
MELTING MELTING MELTING. GET IT? This is NOT because the earth is cooling,
or even staying the same. This does NOT require measurements or interpretations
of measurements. This is NOT dependent on Liberal or Conservative secret
agenda.
This is a physical, view able, experiential FACT. Get on the net and see for
yourselves.
Just stop the stupid arguments and pick it up from here.
Joshua2
>
> What is being missed (or ignored) in all this rhetoric is the basic FACT
> that throughout the decades of the 1960s and 70s, global COOLING was the
> cause-du-jour of the scientific community and environmentalists, and all
> manner of supposedly verified scientific data was trotted out to 'prove'
> that by th 1990s/2000s most of the world would be caught in the grips of
> a new ice age; indeed many popular books touted 'the coming ice age'...
>
> Then in the 1980s both the scientific community and environmentalists did
> a 180 degree turn, and started trotting out supposedly verified
> scientific data purporting to 'prove' that the earth was instead
> experiencing global WARMING and would be a sweltering greenhouse within a
> few decades?
>
> What happened to all the 'proof' of global COOLING that we were presented
> with in the prior 2 decades? If the 'proof' of global cooling was either
> flawed or deliberately concocted, we should we be any more willing to
> accept the veracity of the supposed 'proof' we are now presented of
> supposed global WARMING...
>
> Both sides of the argument can trot out any number of scientific studies
> claiming to prove one side of the argument or the other....why should we
> believe one over the other?
>
> Look behind the smoke and mirrors to the men behind the curtain...
>
> June
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
