On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:06:49 -0500, John Lee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>At least we can all discuss this, have different opinions, and even call
>each other names without rioting and beheadings and threats of death
>resulting. Hail to civilized countries!!
Are you saying, that the US is not a civilized country?
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/pakistan.threat.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan says the United
States threatened to bomb his country back to the Stone Age after the 9/11
attacks if he did not help America's war on terror
;-) flamesuit on
>
>John Lee
>
>
>At 09:12 PM 9/21/06 -0400, Wirt Atmar wrote:
>>Bruce writes:
>>
>> > From Scientific American:
>> > Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain
>> > recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the
>> > existing evidence. The judgment casts doubt on the claims of
>> > some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term
>> > changes in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the
>> > current climate pattern.
>> > http://cl.exct.net/?ffcb10-fe5a1c79756c047f7112-
fdf21573746702797613787c-
>> > ff3310707762
>>
>>There are two groups who you can trust *not* to provide accurate science,
the
>>fundamentalists of the religious right and the funders of the various
>>anti-regulation institutes (the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise
>>Institute,
>>the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.). Unfortunately they are now
the
>>mainstays of the Republican Party.
>>
>>The fundamentalists define their "science" so as to allow it to agree with
>>their preconceived notions. If they had not made themselves so politically
>>powerful, they would simply be ignored.
>>
>>On the other hand, although the funders of the various anti-regulation
>>institutes have nothing in common philosophically with these people,
other
>>than they
>>both work to do everything they can to deceive people whose level of
>>experience, education or expertise doesn't rise to the necessary level of
>>critical
>>questioning, which unfortunately in a scientifically illiterate
population is
>>almost everyone.
>>
>>The standard tactic of these groups is to find and fund marginal
scientists
>>in order to produce a significant array of misleading -- or outrightly
>>incorrect -- reports and then point to the scientific "controversy" that
>>exists about
>>the subject.
>>
>>This was the tactic that was used during the entirety of the
>>cigarettes-cause-cancer "controversy," even though by the time that the
>>CEOs of the various
>>tobacco companies each sat in a line in front of Congress and swore
>>one-by-one
>>that cigarettes did not cause cancer, although a mountain of evidence to
>>contrary had been accumulated over the previous 40 years.
>>
>>While these people eventually came to be completely discredited, the same
>>approach is being used again now by the energy suppliers in regard to
carbon
>>emissions and global warming, and this is the source of the material that
>>Mark
>>Wonsil is prone to post. It essentially has no merit.
>>
>>Within the last several weeks, the presidents of both the American and
>>British Associations for the Advancement of Science, which are independent
>>organizations, have written letters in behalf of their memberships
stating
>>that the
>>debate over global warming is over. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are --
and
>>will -- radically change the near-term environment of the planet.
>>
>>Earlier this month, the Royal Society, the oldest and perhaps most
>>prestigious scientific society in the world, sent a letter to Exxon-
Mobil,
>>saying in
>>effect, "cut the crap." I've included below a NY Times story outlining the
>>letter. Exxon, of course, denies all connection with the organizations
>>that they
>>have been funding:
>>
>>=======================================
>>
>>September 21, 2006
>>British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues
>>By HEATHER TIMMONS
>>
>>LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society,
coontends
>>that Exxon Mobil is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information
>>about
>>climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the
>>issue.
>>
>>The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the
>>1600’s
>>and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon
>>Mobil
>>in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its
>>public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on
>>the issue.
>>
>>There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going
>>on in
>>the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob
>>Ward,
>>the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.
>>
>>The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around
the
>>world
>>agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with
“one
>>or two professional contrarians” who disagree.
>>
>>Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon
Mobil,
>>are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he
>>said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that
it is
>>difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be
>>attributed to
>>human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do
not
>>share.
>>
>>In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and
>>unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon
>>emissions are one
>>of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or
>>dispute this.”
>>
>>Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon
dioxide
>>and other greenhouse gases from its operations.
>>
>>In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was
>>“very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change
>>science in
>>these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.”
>>
>>The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with
the
>>society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the
society
>>considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has
stopped.
>>
>>In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United
>>States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward
>>said,
>>including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy
>>Network
>>and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
>>
>>Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to
>>organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote
>>informed discussion
>>on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do
not
>>speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and
>>messages, Exxon
>>Mobil said.
>>
>>========================================
>>
>>Wirt Atmar
>>
>>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>========================================================================
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
