RE: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other 
factorsSteve,

It is am impressive list, but I can't check out how many of the petitioners 
actually know anything about the subject.  Lots of PhD's, but in what?  Lots of 
MD's. I didn't know atmospheric composition variations were part of a medical 
degree...  Most of the opposition to Global warming is a political 
consideration rather than a scientific one.  As I said before, this isn't a 
matter that voting for what you want to believe is true.  Some people would not 
believe a lion was dangerous if they had been eaten and swallowed already if it 
did not suit their politics.

Ed   
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steven Springer 
  To: [email protected] ; [email protected] 
  Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:07 PM
  Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and 
other factors


  Mike, Ed, All:

  Here is a link to ~31,000 American Scientists 
(http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm ) who would disagree with the 
statement "that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is 
over"; there is also the infamous list of 600 World Scientists (UN affiliation) 
that also disagree with the Global Warming theory.  

  Sorry, as has been noted in previous posts, the Global Warming theory is not 
unanimous among "creditable" scientists, nor is the proof submitted for support 
able to substantiate the conclusion of this theory.

  Steve Springer


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: [email protected] on behalf of Edward Frank
  Sent: Sun 6/7/2009 4:37 PM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and 
other factors


  Mike,

  I believe that any legitimate debate on the subject of global warming is 
over, but you can disagree.  I also agree with you and feel that many of the 
"solutions" being pushed in Washington are more for political show than 
anything.  Some may even make things worse.  We should be striving for better 
emission standards, more efficient burning, and whatever else can reasonably be 
done to lower our environmental footprint, but sending money to third world 
countries in order to pollute more is a useless transfer of wealth that does 
not accomplish anything but hurting our own economy.

  Ed 





  

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to