There now needs to be a congressional hearings on who is making money on this total scam and have any laws been broken.
--- Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html > > --- > Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, > more robust than was > assumed in the climate models?" > > Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually > aren't being disputed by > the meteorological community. They're having trouble > digesting the findings, > they're acknowledging the findings, they're > acknowledging that the data from > NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, > and I think they're > about to recognise that the models really do need to > be overhauled and that > when they are overhauled they will probably show > greatly reduced future > warming projected as a consequence of carbon > dioxide." > > Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the > implications of this > could be considerable ..." > > Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy > implications are enormous. > The meteorological community at the moment is really > just coming to terms > with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and > (climate scientist) Roy > Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is > published, his work is > accepted, but I think people are still in shock at > this point." > > ... > > A great many founts of authority, from the Royal > Society to the UN, most > heads of government along with countless captains of > industry, learned > professors, commentators and journalists will be > profoundly embarrassed. Let > us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience. > > With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the > fog of millennial gloom > will lift, at least until attention turns to the > prospect of the next ice > age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast > of mind that is the basis > of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. > The delusion that by > recycling and catching public transport we can help > save the planet will > quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it > was all along. > > ... > > What The Age decided to spare its readers was the > following: "Well-meaning > intellectual movements, from communism to > post-structuralism, have a poor > history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges > to fundamental > precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good > indicators on the > environment, though they have become extremely rare > now. It is tempting to > the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest > bleak scenario because it > fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing > cultural pessimism. The > imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always > at the end of an era. > But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, > for the provenance of > the data, the assumptions fed into the computer > model, the response of the > peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is > intellectually delicious, > even thrilling, but the matter before us is too > serious for mere > self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the > environmental movement > degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, > ungrounded certainty, > is no virtue.)" > > The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in > The Age's version of > the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian > McEwan 2008" and there is > no acknowledgment of editing by The Age. > > Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan > lite? Was he, I wonder, > consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice > irony that The Age chose to > delete the line about ideologues not being very good > at "absorbing > inconvenient fact"? > --- > > The free traders have similarly bastardized Smith's > famous "Invisible Hand" > passage, twisting it to say "that which was no part > of [its] intention"... > > It's not what's said, but what is left out, or > silently redacted, that > reveals the truth behind the lie. > > - Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
