Actually there's more money going to the global warming nuts in the way of books, lectures, research grants and movie deals.
--- Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:45 AM, David Crooks wrote: > > > I keep hearing people say that and wonder why > couldn't man's existence > > on this planet have some effect on temperature? I > am not being > > argumentative. Just curious why folks keep > insisting that global > > warning > > is not man-made? > > Follow the money. > > Whenever there is a "controversy" being raised > where there is no > actual controversy underlying it, it's because > someone is afraid of > losing money. In this case it's the oil companies > and others who are > raking in record profits; words like 'conservation' > only mean that > people will buy less of their stuff. So they stir up > a fake > 'controversy', buy a couple of supposed scientists > to speak out > publicly against the issue, and instruct their media > minions to begin > spouting the same baseless crap, knowing full well > that their > listeners are likely not to understand science at > all, and will be > easily convinced that the political agenda is on the > other side. > > There is an excellent article in the August 2007 > issue of Scientific > American that correlates a lot of the data into a > very consistent > picture. Sure, anyone can take any one piece of > information and find > some way to call it into doubt, but when you see > lots of data on > various independent phenomena all correlating > tightly, that's much > harder to explain away. It's a lot like the > 'controversy' over > cigarette smoking: you do realize that the relation > between smoking > cigarettes and cancer has never been proven, either? > It's impossible > to do a scientific proof without stringent testing, > and killing > controlled groups of humans isn't acceptable. But > things such as the > rise of lung cancer from a nearly non-existent > disease to a leading > killer of men 30-40 years after the introduction of > cigarettes, and > the subsequent parallel rise of lung cancer in women > 30-40 years > after smoking by women became socially acceptable. > Can you find > anecdotal evidence that contradicts this? Sure; > hell, I had a great- > aunt who started smoking when she was 12 and lived > to be 95, smoking > heavily the whole time. All that shows is that > anecdotes do not > constitute scientific testing. > > The actions by the oil companies today in > questioning global warming > is very much like the efforts of the tobacco > industry to constantly > cast doubt on the connection between smoking and > various diseases, > even when overwhelming evidence showed the > connection to be true. > > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: > http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, > are the opinions of the author, and do not > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are > too stupid to see the obvious. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
