--- In [email protected], "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Bronte Baxter <brontebaxter8@> wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of who published the article, it's true that lots of scientists
> > don't accept
the
> new party line on global warming that is being now handed us as gospel. I've
> read
articles
> from several sources along this same line (sorry, didn't copy and can't quote
> -- next
time I
> see some, I'll send them to FFL).
> >
> > Many independent scientists are saying the earth is simply going into a
> > warm cycle
due
> to increased sunspot activity: the sun is hotter, so the earth is hotter.
> That doesn't mean
> pollution shouldn't be eliminated or that it's not poisonous to the earth.
> Why are the
> politicians on the bandwagon of global warming, though, if it may not really
> be caused
by
> pollution but may be natural? Could it be they want to scare us enough that
> we'll
willingly
> let them tax us still further or take away still more of our freedoms?
> 911/Iraq War
tactics
> applied to environmental issues: the big guys want something, they create a
> problem to
> scare and upset everybody, then they present the solution which is what they
> wanted us
to
> give them all along.
> >
>
Real or hyped, Global Wa... excuse me, 'Climate Change' is a political
reality, its
influence as an issue is ascending in the public awareness, notwithstanding
whether its
physical features are real, or as dire, as some predict. The proponents of
the theory of
climate change suggest that humans are all-powerful and directly attributable
to
evironmental degradation or its reverse, restoration. The concept is a tad too
'Ethnocentric' for me to embrace, yet I am preparing myself psychologically
for 'eco-
fascism', whereby discrete prescriptions will be forced upon the citizenry in
vain attempts
to compel compliance and adherence to daily living practices that have dubious
effects to
reduce negative impacts on the environment.
Additionally, genocide becomes more palatable and perhaps justified in
the minds of
those who want to lessen humanity's collective carbon footprint. How admirable
it has
become to care for the planet, yet to despise the large number of humans,
which are the
planet's most awesome display of the wonder of creation.
-Mainstream
>
> > "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > from earthtimes.org
> > >
> > > Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds
> > > Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made
> > > Global Warming Fears
> > >
> > > Posted : Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:58:42 GMT
> > > Author : Hudson Institute
> >
> > Shemp never fails to amuse. While Shemp accuses all the world's
> > representative governments of being biased, leftist funders of climate
> > change research, all he can come up with in rebuttal to their science
> > is self-interested right wing corporately funded, cherry-picked
> > science - and no cohesive comparable body of science to the world-wide
> > National Academies of Science and the IPCC.
> > --
> >
> > The Hudson Institute, author of Shemp's article, gains financial
> > support from many of the foundations and corporations that have
> > bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a
> > conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their
> > funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8
> > being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left." [...]
> >
> > While many conservative think tanks eschew government funding, Hudson
> > happily takes government contracts. The Capital Research Centre (CRC)
> > database lists Hudson as having received six grants between 1996 and
> > 2002 totalling $731,914 (unadjusted for inflation). Five of the six
> > grants were from the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
> > In 2002 Hudson received a grant of $173,484 from the Department of
> > Commerce.
> >
> > The far right Hudson Institute is funded in part by the following BIG
> > PHARMA, BIG AGRA, and BIG OIL corporate interests. Below is a partial
> > list:
> >
> > * American Cyanamid
> > * Archer Daniels Midland
> > * Ciba-Geigy
> > * ConAgra Foods
> > * Conrad Black
> > * DowElanco
> > * DuPont
> > * Eli Lilly and Company
> > * *EXXON MOBIL*
> > * Lilly Endowment
> > * Merck
> > * Monsanto
> > * National Agricultural Chemical Association
> > * PhRMA
> > * PriceWaterhouseCoopers
> > * Syngenta Crop Protection
> > * United Agri Products
> >
> > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute
>
