Ed
Are you telling me that internet petitions are not always representative of truth (:-))? "Most of the opposition to Global warming is a political consideration rather than a scientific one." Perhaps, this is because of the recognition that this hysteria is a political issue! Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has been propped up as the poster child for public education and policy promotion for this cause. The information promoted by the film has been refuted so much that it is incredible! However, when such fantasy is on exhibit, you who are convinced of this doctrine fail to oppose. Why? Actually, I am convinced, as are many others (including on this board), that most of the proponents of this theory are interested in political agendas rather than science. Some people would not believe a lion was dangerous if they had been eaten and swallowed already if it did not suit their politics. This is a true statement among many (I am not included in this bunch, I assure you!). Better be sure that an actual lion, with teeth, is coming and not simply a man behind the curtain trying to scare others. Steve Springer ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Frank Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 5:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Steve, 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 <mailto:[email protected]> 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 <BR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
