snowfall in the Carolinas today and tomorrow.
55 on saturday and
65 on sunday

is that a great warming or ????

Michael

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:00:49 +1100, Greg Chaplin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Wow, a polite, civilised conversation without name-calling, mud-slinging,

>generalisations or wild accusations, and with reasoned arguments from
>both sides and acceptance of different points of view.
>What is this list coming to?
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>Greg Chaplin
>www.unisuper.com.au
>[log in to unmask]
>UniSuper
>Level 37, 385 Bourke Street
>Melbourne  VIC  3000
>Australia
>Phone: 61 3 9691 4145
>Fax:   61 3 9691 4141
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 26/02/2004 12:17:32 >>>
>In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] writes
>>Roy asks:
>>
>>> > I think we have to be careful in using a study by a guy who advised
>>>  >Spielberg on the movie "Minority Report" among other things;
>>>
>>>  I know Wirt's strictures on science fiction, which I guess you could
>>>  classify 'Minority Report' as an example of.
>>>
>>>  And I'm sure the guy is dead right in cautioning against making waves
>>>  based on such an apocalyptic picture of a world that only Kevin Costner
>>>  could really be at home in... [1]
>>>
>>>  But can anybody explain to me how the above sentence isn't a really,
>>>  nasty, shitty, closed-minded and intolerant attack that borders on the
>>>  ad hominem, if indeed it doesn't wholeheartedly embrace it?
>
>>No, I don't mind explaining it to you at all.
>
>Thank you, most kind.
>
>> In a nutshell, you completely misunderstood the comment.
>
>No, I don't think so. I certainly didn't have the context you give
>below, and which is illuminating. But as a central plank in an argument,
>to try to dismiss someone *just because* he helped on a film, even a
>sci-fi one, is to my mind grossly unfair.
>
>> Peter Schwartz, the fellow under consideration, describes himself as a
>>"futurist." He is the president of a consulting firm which he calls
>>Global Business Network, and as anyone in his position, must naturally
>>resort to self-promotory tactics. The fact that he advised Spielberg on
>>"Minority Report" is not an ad hominen attack. Rather, it is both
>>apparently a source of pride with him and his primary claim to fame.
>
>The former, I can understand. The latter, however, starts the
>rumblings....
>
>>Schwartz is not a scientist. He has conducted no independent research,
>>he has presented no talks at scientific meetings, he has published no
>>papers in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals, thus he has established
>>no credibility for himself. All that he has done was to interview
>>"leading climatologists,"
>
>OK, that's pretty damning....
>
>>thus Wil Burns comment that "I think we have to be careful in using a
>>study by a guy who advised Spielberg on the movie "Minority Report"
>>among other things," is not only well considered, but absolutely
>>correct.
>
>I am beginning to see that it was perhaps shorthand for a context that
>his intended audience knew very well, but which of course, I didn't.
>Perhaps in addressing a wider audience, Will Burns would have made the
>less emotive but more cogent criticisms you made. Or he might have said
>"I think we have to be careful in using a study by a guy who*se chief
>claim to fame is that he* advised Spielberg on the movie 'Minority
>Report'".
>
>And then let the idea that this too, might be a 'minority report' hang
>in the air....
>
>>To hold this work up as a valid study invites immediate dismissal among
>>serious students.
>
>>That doesn't mean that it is completely valueless however, but it
>>should only be given the same level of consideration as a report in
>>Time Magazine. It's primary value actually lies in that the report was
>>created under the imprimatur of the Pentagon -- and that's unusual
>>enough in the current circumstances to give it some notice.
>
>I read about it in a London paper - the Metro - sound, but not one of
>the most respected ones by some margin - and I had to look more than
>twice at its provenance, as its apocalyptic message seemed startlingly
>at variance with its source.
>
>Perhaps a government that sits on *real* scientific research (according
>to your recent 'Red Meat' postings here) lets out some of the wilder
>stuff to discredit the whole process generally? Or is that too
>Machiavellian for this lot?
>
>Anyway, thank you for the context - I understand better now. Perhaps
>sometimes the exotic species you proffer for our admiration go a bit
>adrift, when taken outside of their native ecosystems?
>
>Regards
>
>
>Roy
>
>--
>Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
>Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>"This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s)
> and contains information which may be confidential. If

> you are not the intended recipient please advise the
> sender by return email, do not use or disclose the
> contents, and delete the message and any attachments
> from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this
> email does not constitute formal advice or commitment
> by the sender or UniSuper (ABN 54 006 027 121) or its
> subsidiaries."
>
>* 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 *