--- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Gore, equally, lives in a fantasy land where imagined > > dangers > > > > > > > > to the planet are concocted in his mind and propagated > > > > > > > > unremittingly by him to the public. Like the Energizer > > Bunny, > > > > > > > > he goes on and on about global warming without any > > concern > > > > > about > > > > > > > > truth or the impact his words will have on others. He > > has > > > > built > > > > > > > > a fantasy wall around himself in which he -- and he > > alone -- > > > > > > > > cares about the world and all others be damned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no, in fact none of the above is true. > > > > > > > Gore is very much in line with most current > > > > > > > scientific thinking about global warming and > > > > > > > has most of his facts straight, all the > > > > > > > important ones, according to climate scientists. > > > > > > > > > > > > And which climate scientists are those? > > > > > > > > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299 > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2e6vba > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yawn. > > > > > > > > Typical global-warming-fear-monger propaganda. > > > > > > > > I counted 11 scientists listed under the "people" link. > > > > > > > > Hardly a ringing endorsement. > > > > > > > > > Of course Shemp ignores the following: > > > > > > > > > The National Academies of Science represent the scientific > > communities > > > of 11 major nations of the world. > > > > > > Brazil > > > Canada > > > China > > > France > > > Germany > > > India > > > Italy > > > Japan > > > Russia > > > United Kingdom > > > United States of America > > > > > > *See their report* on Climate Change here: http://tinyurl.com/3ykvyg > > > > > > AND, > > > > > > The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] > > > > > > Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the > > World > > > Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment > > > Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > > > Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to *ALL* members of the > > > UN and WMO. > > > > > > *See their report* on Climate Change here: > > > http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm > > > > > > Maybe you'd like to try to count how many scientists these groups > > > represent. Then maybe you could show 'your' side of the story by > > > presenting a comparable body of scientists that don't come from > > > either right wing conspiracy freaks or people or groups funded by > > Big > > > Oil and acting as their shills. > > > > > > > > > > ...and who is funding the organisations -- all political -- that you > > cite above? > > > > Why, governments, of course which are POLITICAL... > > > And that makes their world-wide collective findings of the reality of > global warming illegitimate, HOW ?????
Uh, the same way that the collective findings of the unreality of catastrophic man-made global warming is illegitimate on the part of research funded by oil companies. If you can explain that cause-effect relationship then you have the answer to your question. > > > > > So thank you for invoking the principle of funding...it makes my > > point. >
