<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Are you really equating skepticism of global warming with
believing that the Earth is flat? I see that Global Warming
advocacy monies are monies well spent.<br>
<br>
I sometimes debate about facts, such as wondering why the number
of thermometers used to determine the global land temperature
record fell by so many in 2006. Mostly, I debate interpretations
of the facts. I can't help it if they are sometimes
interpretations that the global warming scientists and their
lackeys don't want debated.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 07/08/2012 06:10 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1341796228.57620.YahooMailNeo@web121801.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:tahoma,
new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">Paul,</span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto"></span> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">Most
people learn from and debate the significance of the facts.
We are all qualified and prepared for this. You debate the
facts and the well <span style="RIGHT: auto"
id="misspell-0"><span>established</span></span> <span
style="RIGHT: auto" id="misspell-1"><span>scientific</span></span>
methods of how facts are <span style="RIGHT: auto"
id="misspell-2"><span>established</span></span>. </span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto"></span> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">Two
people cannot debate the best way to get to the moon when
one one of them still believes the Earth is flat.<var
id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto"></span> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><span style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan J.
Arnold</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma, new york, times, serif;
FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times,
serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<div style="RIGHT: auto" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial"
size="2">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Paul
Rumelhart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> Sam
Scripter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:moscowsam@charter.net"><moscowsam@charter.net></a> <br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b>
Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:40 PM<br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media
Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<div id="yiv2014080595">
<div>
<div class="yiv2014080595moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Does "validly express <span id="misspell-5"
class="mark">one's</span> positions on the findings
of science" equate to "conform to the scientific
consensus"? Is there no room for criticism and
debate?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 07/08/2012 11:10 AM, Sam Scripter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Good post, Joe!
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I appreciate the "pains"/time/effort you take
to carefully, fully explain your points about how
to validly express <span id="misspell-7"
class="mark">one's</span> position on the
findings of science.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sam S</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public
Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning
Trees" <br>
From: Joe Campbell <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>
<br>
To: Paul Rumelhart <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</a>
<br>
CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Two other points worth making.<br>
<br>
First, you would come off as something other than a
spokesman for a<br>
radical, ill-informed, politically motivated
position if your<br>
criticisms went both ways. You like to point out
"flaws" in climate<br>
science. But are there no flaws in the arguments of
their detractors?<br>
No fallacies, no prejudices, no false reports, no
political<br>
motivations? Doubtful.<br>
<br>
Second, in your initial post, at the bottom of this
one, you list<br>
several complaints about the political motivations
lurking behind<br>
climate science. But this makes it seem as if
climate science is<br>
somehow separated from the rest of science and the
academy and nothing<br>
can be further from the truth.<br>
<br>
At <span id="misspell-9" class="mark">WSU</span>,
climate scientists work within the School of Earth
and<br>
Environmental Sciences (SEES), which is made up of
scientists from a<br>
multitude of disciplines such as geology,
geochemistry, ecology,<br>
hydrology, microbiology, and marine biology. Were
you to poll these<br>
folks -- indeed, were you to poll scientists in
general -- you'd find<br>
that there is an overwhelming consensus among them
about the impact of<br>
human behavior on global warming. Thus, if we are to
believe your<br>
reports of bias among climate scientists, the
conspiracy would be more<br>
widespread than you suggest, involving not just
climate scientists but<br>
the entire scientific community, perhaps all of the
academy. In the<br>
end, we're left with a fairytale conspiracy theory
that is<br>
preposterous and unbelievable.<br>
<br>
Just to note one example, you constantly complain
about problems with<br>
computer models when making large-scale claims about
global climate<br>
change but did you know that these models are used
in other areas of<br>
science as well? A quick scan of some of the
research interests of<br>
members of SEES makes the point. One professor's
"research uses<br>
computer simulation models to help us understand the
recent problems<br>
in the electric power industry." Another "combines
field measurements<br>
with theoretical models and computer simulations to
shed light on<br>
natural water flows, mixing, and sediment
transport." This is research<br>
that is funded by competitive national grants and
provides information<br>
that is actually used to solve real-world problems.
Why not<br>
investigate whether or not your worries about
computer models apply to<br>
these areas of research as well? The flip-side is,
don't you think<br>
that these scientists would all be standing up on
their soapboxes<br>
deriding the claims of climate scientists if their
work were as biased<br>
and fallacious as you contend that it is? Don't you
think they'd want<br>
to separate their research from the disreputable
research of climate<br>
scientists if that work were as questionable as you
contend? Again, if<br>
we are to believe any of your claims, the political
conspiracy would<br>
be very wide, so wide as to involve the whole of the
academy.<br>
<br>
As the Director of the School of Politics,
Philosophy, and Public<br>
Affairs, I have a keen interest in the connections
between science,<br>
ethics, and policy: How can we take the information
that science<br>
provides and apply it to the real world in a way
that is beneficial to<br>
humanity and the universe in general? Last year we
started a series of<br>
lectures in an attempt to help the general public
better understand<br>
complex issues like global warming, bringing
together experts from a<br>
variety of fields for public forums at least once a
semester. Last<br>
spring we brought in Andrew Light, a Senior Fellow
at the Center for<br>
American Progress, and formed a panel discussion
with representatives<br>
from biochemistry, sociology, and philosophy to
provide information on<br>
this very topic. After brief presentations from the
panelists, there<br>
was a Q&A where folks were allowed to ask
questions and voice concerns<br>
about these matters. I advertised this on Vision
2020. This is not the<br>
behavior of people who have an agenda that they want
to trick you into<br>
believing.<br>
<br>
This year we promise to have more events. I'm in the
process of<br>
organizing a conference on <span id="misspell-10"
class="mark">neurophilosophy</span>, investigating
the impact<br>
of neuroscience on such areas as ethics and the law,
and we're also<br>
inviting Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of
Philosophy at Duke<br>
University, who will likely give a talk on
bioethics. I'll continue to<br>
advertise these events on Vision 2020 and I
encourage you and others<br>
to attend. In general, I encourage you, Paul, to
seek out local<br>
presentations by climate scientists -- I've helped
organize at least 3<br>
such events over the last 3 years -- and to ask
questions directly to<br>
the scientists themselves and see if they might be
able to respond to<br>
your concerns. In other words, instead of voicing
your concerns to a<br>
group with no expertise that is unable to evaluate
the merits of your<br>
claims, take them to the climate scientists
themselves and see what<br>
they say. And do it in a public venue. That way,
folks would be able<br>
to here both sides of the issue and make a more
informed decision.<br>
<br>
Best, Joe<br>
<br>
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</a>
wrote:<br>
> Can I assume you have credentials in climate
science? Because, otherwise,<br>
> you are being hypocritical in calling me out
for "degrading" the<br>
> conversation because of my lack of the same.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental knowledge
of how arguments work.<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: Ted <span id="misspell-12" class="mark">Moffett</span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">mailto:starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
> To: Joe Campbell <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public
Accuracy: "Media Miss the<br>
> Forest for the Burning Trees"<br>
><br>
> Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner
so easy to understand, coming<br>
> from someone who could write at a level that
would be obtuse for many... I'm<br>
> reminded of the writing style of philosopher
Bertrand Russell<br>
><br>
> When in a dialog someone of a significant level
of education and<br>
> intelligence repeatedly refuses to admit when
it is pointed out that they<br>
> have engaged in significant omissions, errors
and misrepresentations<br>
> regarding a critical scientific field, and
promotes what can be easily<br>
> determined by most anyone doing cursory
research of scientific peer review,<br>
> to be junk science, as though we are supposed
to take it seriously, this<br>
> implies a factual and/or argumentative filter
at work, for whatever reason<br>
> or reasons. Call it a indication of an
"agenda," or who knows what it is!<br>
><br>
> Maybe there is still some social value to such
a degraded dialog, but it<br>
> ceases to offer significant credible factual or
augmentative input of<br>
> interest for someone who reaches a certain
level of competency in exploring<br>
> the scientific field involved.<br>
><br>
> On the issue of complexity as an argument for a
high degree of skepticism<br>
> about the claims of a given field of knowledge,
the human brain/mind is<br>
> claimed by some to be the most complex object
in the known universe,<br>
> therefore we should engage in a high degree of
skepticism about any claims<br>
> by anyone about any ones state of "mind,"
whether scientific claims or other<br>
> sorts. It amazes me that people make such
simple and easy <span id="misspell-13" class="mark">judgements</span>
about<br>
> each others state of mind, given that such
propositions to be credible<br>
> should only be made by those with <span
id="misspell-14" class="mark">PhDs</span> in a
psychology or perhaps<br>
> neurobiology related field, and even these <span
id="misspell-15" class="mark">judgements</span> it
can be argued are<br>
> very open to question, assuming a vast
complexity is underpinning each<br>
> humans state of mind.<br>
><br>
> Consider this dialog with <span
id="misspell-16" class="mark">neuroscientist</span>
Michael <span id="misspell-17" class="mark">Gazzaniga</span>:<br>
><br>
> ALAN <span id="misspell-18" class="mark">ALDA</span>
INTERVIEWS MICHAEL <span id="misspell-19"
class="mark">GAZZANIGA</span><br>
> Featured on "The Man with Two Brains,"<br>
> from the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS special
"Pieces of Mind."<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm</a><br>
><br>
> Alan <span id="misspell-20" class="mark">Alda</span>:<br>
> I have to say - and from talking to you I think
you feel this way, too -<br>
> consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It
feels good to have<br>
> consciousness. When you lose consciousness and
when you sense you're going<br>
> to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good.
You get a little nervous about<br>
> that. But what do you suppose is the reason we
have consciousness? Why has<br>
> it persisted? What good is it in terms of the
survival of the species?<br>
> Michael <span id="misspell-21" class="mark">Gazzaniga</span>:<br>
> That's related to the $64,000 question. What's
it for? If you want to<br>
> understand anything, you've got to know what
it's for. And it so permeates<br>
> every thought we have, you think, well, it's
for keeping us motivated, to<br>
> have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start
to put this stuff down on<br>
> paper and it just doesn't look like you're
saying much.<br>
> You know, there's a bunch of philosophers now
who are saying, "A human<br>
> trying to understand consciousness is like a
nematode trying to understand a<br>
> dog." It's just too big a problem, and they
kind of toss it out the window.<br>
> Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly,
it's going to take a lot of<br>
> major new thinking to really give us an
insight, a handle on how we can<br>
> scientifically talk about this phenomenal
awareness that we all experience.<br>
> -------------------------------------------<br>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted <span id="misspell-22"
class="mark">Moffett</span><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>I'm making claims about your arguments and</div>
> when it comes to judgments about the strengths
and weaknesses of<br>
> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader
area of epistemology --<br>
> there is NO ONE living on the <span
id="misspell-23" class="mark">Palouse</span> who is
more qualified than I am<br>
> (although there are a few people who are as
qualified).<br>
><br>
> Paul,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for helping me to make my case!<br>
><br>
> The point is that you DON'T believe that smoking
causes lung cancer on<br>
> the basis of scientific evidence that you
understand and evaluate,<br>
> because you are not a scientist. You believe it
because it is "common<br>
> sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils
down to the fact that<br>
> it seems to you to be true) and because the
experts tell you it is<br>
> true. You still haven't shown a difference
between the case of smoking<br>
> and human carbon consumption. Let's look more
closely at some of the<br>
> BAD arguments you give below for the supposed
difference.<br>
><br>
> Two clarifications first. My point was that
unless you are an actual<br>
> scientist, it is almost impossible to make
judgments about scientific<br>
> claims on evidence alone. In most cases,
understanding the evidence<br>
> would require a high level of expertise. This is
why scientific<br>
> beliefs should be based on testimony, the
testimony of experts in the<br>
> field. My general claim was that there is NO
basis to dismiss one set<br>
> of scientists (climate scientists, say) yet not
dismiss others as<br>
> well. In my previous post, I happened to mention
scientists who<br>
> specialize in lung cancer research but below I
mention others since<br>
> they are helpful in showing flaws in your
reasoning.<br>
><br>
> Also, you might wonder how I'm qualified to speak
about such matters,<br>
> given that I'm not a climate scientist either.
But I'm not making any<br>
> claims about the climate. I just trust what the
climate scientists<br>
> tell me for reasons given. I'm making claims
about your arguments and<br>
> when it comes to judgments about the strengths
and weaknesses of<br>
> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader
area of epistemology --<br>
> there is NO ONE living on the <span
id="misspell-24" class="mark">Palouse</span> who is
more qualified than I am<br>
> (although there are a few people who are as
qualified).<br>
><br>
> The points in (1) are irrelevant and were
addressed above. In the<br>
> 1950s smoking seemed to be a healthy activity and
was promoted as<br>
> such. Common sense turned out to be wrong. Common
sense is never a<br>
> reason for holding scientific beliefs.<br>
><br>
> <span id="misspell-25" class="mark">Wrt</span>
(2), I'd be willing to bet that there are climate
scientists<br>
> working on these very questions. In any event,
I'm not sure what<br>
> evidence you have to say otherwise. I tend to
leave it to scientists<br>
> to determine what kinds of studies they should or
shouldn't be<br>
> concerned with in order to support their claims.
Since you are not a<br>
> scientist, these points are meaningless.<br>
><br>
> For point (3), it is true that the climate is
complex. But the<br>
> universe is even MORE complex. To the extent that
this gives you a<br>
> reason to dismiss climate science it should give
you EVEN MORE reason<br>
> to dismiss all of physics for both the
micro-level of the universe and<br>
> the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE
complex than the earth's<br>
> climate. This is just a general skeptical
argument that applies to<br>
> almost ANY area of science. Why accept it <span
id="misspell-26" class="mark">wrt</span> climate
science but not,<br>
> say, cosmology? Why believe anything that Stephen
Hawking says, for<br>
> instance? Do you know how much MORE complicated
the whole <span id="misspell-27" class="mark">frickin</span>'<br>
> universe is when compared with the earth's
climate? This is an absurd,<br>
> BAD, and irresponsible argument.<br>
><br>
> I've responded to arguments like those in (4) and
(5) before but it<br>
> hasn't seemed to sink in yet. Whether or not a
scientist has an agenda<br>
> is IRRELEVANT. What matters is the EVIDENCE he or
she has in support<br>
> of the claims made. Suppose you find out that 99%
of scientists who<br>
> study the links between smoking and lung cancer
went into the field<br>
> for emotional and irrational reasons -- suppose,
say, that members of<br>
> their family died of lung cancer. That would be
irrelevant and<br>
> shouldn't cause you to dismiss their findings.
ALL that is relevant is<br>
> the epistemological quality of the evidence,
which can be judged in<br>
> objective ways.<br>
><br>
> If your argument were sound, it should give
people reason to dismiss<br>
> EVERYTHING you say because you clearly have an
agenda. You can't tell<br>
> me that your concern with the issue of global
warming is independent<br>
> of your political views or your personal habits,
that it is solely<br>
> motivated by the desire for objective truth and
nothing more. This<br>
> very argument undermines everything you say on
Vision 2020 since all<br>
> of it is in keeping with your own political
viewpoints, or "agenda."<br>
> But people shouldn't dismiss your views merely
because you happen to<br>
> be interested in politics. They should judge your
views on the basis<br>
> of the evidence you provide in support of the
claims that you make.<br>
> They shouldn't make sweeping generalizations
about your claims either;<br>
> they should evaluate each argument individually.<br>
><br>
> If your argument were sound, we should dismiss
ALL sciences related to<br>
> human heath, since they are all motivated by the
subjective desire to<br>
> help human beings extend their lives and improve
the quality of their<br>
> lives. Likely anyone working in the area of
cancer research is<br>
> motivated in part by the selfish desire to become
THE person that<br>
> finds the cure for cancer. That is irrelevant.
This is another general<br>
> skeptical argument that (if sound) should cause
you to dismiss much<br>
> more than climate science.<br>
><br>
> ALL scientific claims should be judged by the
merits of the evidence<br>
> given. Personal facts about the scientists are
ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.<br>
> People tend to choose their vocations for
personal reasons, not<br>
> because of a desire to seek objective truth.
Scientists are no<br>
> different in this regard.<br>
><br>
> Best, Joe<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rumelhart <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com</a>
wrote:<br>
>> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes
lung disease if you don't<br>
>>> believe that human carbon consumption has
an impact on global warming?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Joe<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption
is not having an impact on<br>
>> global warming. I'm saying that the size of
the impacts compared to the<br>
>> more-or-less unknown natural factors is
unknown and that the <span id="misspell-29"
class="mark">feedbacks</span><br>
>> from<br>
>> warming in general are unknown, among other
things.<br>
>><br>
>> There are plenty of reasons, both scientific
and not, that make me<br>
>> skeptical<br>
>> of global warming. Although everyone will
assume I'm just grasping at<br>
>> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny
everything (probably has to<br>
>> do<br>
>> with my relationship with my mother), I
humbly present a smattering of<br>
>> them<br>
>> for your enjoyment:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. On the face of it, the idea is
extraordinary. Humans, even with our<br>
>> vaunted civilization, are small potatoes
compared to the forces of nature.<br>
>> The only reason our carbon footprint even
makes a dent compared to natural<br>
>> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2
in our atmosphere. We've<br>
>> had<br>
>> far less of an impact on the water cycle, for
example, or with oxygen<br>
>> levels. Not saying that it isn't possible,
but there is automatically a<br>
>> bar<br>
>> that has to be gotten over which smoking
causing lung disease doesn't<br>
>> have.<br>
>> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke
multiple times a day for<br>
>> years<br>
>> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs,
even without bringing in<br>
>> carcinogens.<br>
>><br>
>> 2. There are some obvious questions that
aren't being answered because of<br>
>> the focus on human impacts. For example,
what caused the earth to heat up<br>
>> immediately following the Little Ice Age? If
we do not know, how can we<br>
>> say<br>
>> with any confidence that human-induced
climate change is to blame instead<br>
>> of<br>
>> the same natural processes still at work?
What causes an ice age to<br>
>> start,<br>
>> and what brings us out of one?<br>
>><br>
>> 3. The climate is complex, with multiple <span
id="misspell-30" class="mark">feedbacks</span> of
unknown strength<br>
>> and<br>
>> unknown <span id="misspell-31" class="mark">feedbacks</span>
of unknown strength. The sign of the combination of<br>
>> <span id="misspell-32" class="mark">feedbacks</span>
isn't even known. Climate models cannot be that
accurate, given<br>
>> the above, yet they are seen as gospel. Even
when they make different<br>
>> assumptions and model things different ways.
As long as they project a<br>
>> warmer future, they are added to the model
average and used as proof that<br>
>> global warming will kill babies and cause
frogs to rain from the sky.<br>
>><br>
>> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung
disease from tobacco are relatively<br>
>> straight forward.<br>
>><br>
>> 4. Some of the major players in the
spotlight on the side of global<br>
>> warming<br>
>> are environmental activists with an agenda,
as opposed to being objective<br>
>> scientists just following the data. For
example, Timothy <span id="misspell-33" class="mark">Wirth</span>
(Senator<br>
>> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating
team for the Kyoto treaty)<br>
>> held<br>
>> a hearing on global warming at the capital.
He called the Weather Bureau<br>
>> to<br>
>> find out what day of the year was usually the
hottest in DC, and scheduled<br>
>> the hearing for that date. His team then
went in the night before the<br>
>> hearing and opened all the windows in the
room in which the hearing was to<br>
>> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail
to keep up with the heat.<br>
>> All<br>
>> so that it could be hot and muggy when James
Hansen gave his spiel about<br>
>> the<br>
>> dangers of global warming.<br>
>><br>
>> (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html</a>)<br>
>><br>
>> The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their
sheer propaganda, do seem to be<br>
>> run by political activists, but that may be
coincidental.<br>
>><br>
>> 5. Major climate scientists also appear to
have political agendas.<br>
>> Michael<br>
>> Mann and his "hockey stick" come to mind,
trying to erase the Medieval<br>
>> Warm<br>
>> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious
statistics, all so they could<br>
>> show that current warming was
"unprecedented". All this from a few<br>
>> <span id="misspell-34" class="mark">bristlecone</span>
pine trees.<br>
>><br>
>> I haven't heard of any of these kinds of
shenanigans from scientists<br>
>> studying the link between tobacco use and
lung diseases, probably because<br>
>> the links were relatively straight forward.
Not so much the case with<br>
>> global warming / global climate change /
global climate disruption.<br>
>><br>
>> There are more, but that gives you the gist
of it. But hey, it's just me<br>
>> being <span id="misspell-35" class="mark">contrarian</span>,
right? So please, move along. Nothing to see here.<br>
>><br>
>> Paul<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>
=======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the <span
id="misspell-36" class="mark">Palouse</span> since
1994.<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
>
=======================================================<br>
><br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the <span id="misspell-37"
class="mark">Palouse</span> since 1994.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="yiv2014080595mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the <span id="misspell-38" class="mark">Palouse</span> since 1994.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="yiv2014080595moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the <span id="misspell-39"
class="mark">Palouse</span> since 1994.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br>
<span id="misspell-40" class="mark">mailto</span>:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>