On Tue January 29 2008 03:19:33 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Our 0.15% contribution
> > >> to greenhouse gasses does nothing to warm the planet
>
> that is as asinine are Gore's propaganda. Where on earth is there space for
> some truth?
Right here. Thanks for asking! :-)
note: "AIT" = An Inconvenient Truth
- - - - - 8< - - - - -
The England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions:
Justice Burton:
" I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit
that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and
communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political
programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain [note: the *Plaintiff*] persuasively sets out at
paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very
well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and
accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the
past half century and are likely to continue to rise (”climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (”greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on
the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which
will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
- - - - - 8< - - - - -
Now, a closer look at the opposition:
- - - - - 8< - - - - -
"Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film - Fuel and mining magnate
backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html
- - - - - 8< - - - - -
I do not understand your meaning, below. Be more precise and succinct.
(I don't know you, or your motivations, but "muddying the waters" is a common
tactic of the right. IOW, sowing confusion into the debate, like this: a)
appearing to agree with both sides, b) leading up to clear conclusions then
stating the opposite, c) incorporating vague and maladapted analogies, etc.
Is this what you are engaging in?)
> Mainstream media and government have had decades of opportunity to
<blather snipped>
> reasoning and words about global warming?
> > > Then came "Against Nature," a
> > > documentary which aired on the BBC which then had to issue a public
> > > apology for showing it.
> > >
> > > Get some SCIENCE not blather, Fred. And PLEASE post to the list!
>
> I absolutely agree.
<more blather snipped>
Then leave it there!
> wannabe a real conservative?
What is the scientific definition of "conservative"? I am engaged here in an
exchange concerning established scientific method and facts vs. politically
motivated and dishonest junk and pseudo science.
Give me science, please, and stuff your politics!
Carl
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
