[Platt]
The issue is the honesty of SOM science.
[Arlo]
Which I presume includes "scientists" opposed to "global warming", or
espousing a "rightist ideology". Or should we naturally accept what
they say as "honest", since those in the "right" never lie, cheat,
falsify or alter data to support their "agenda". I mean, do the
scientists promoting right-wing views "have a provision for morals"?
And, if ALL science is suspect, who do we turn to here?
And what about this? What if we forget the "global warming hysteria"
on both sides (the side that shouts "the sky is falling" and the side
that shouts "its a one-world conspiracy to enslave mankind") and just
consider for a moment that maybe reducing pollution is a good goal
all around, even when it interferes with our Holy Pursuit of the
Almighty Dollar.
In the end, the Earth has been through cycles of glaciation and
cycles of temperance. It has been covered in ice, and covered in
sweltering tropics. The poles have shifted, areas of vegetation are
now deserts, while areas once inhabitable are lush valleys. But it is
our home. And we should treat it with respect.
IMHO.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
