Re: virus: cooler headsExplanation - Anti Global Warming Petition

James Veverka (headbands@webtv.net)
Sat, 22 May 1999 18:13:21 -0400 (EDT)

--WebTV-Mail-1920342306-2842
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Well of course, (19,200? )but that does not dismiss the science. The smoking bit is another "great comparison" you have come up with. Everyone is coughing and hacking and dying and there is no connection? Deceptive and absurd. And clearly wrong. Reductionism for every family!

Originally, I took the same position as yourself. I keep up with the events and the research that are presently going on, reading both arguments on any study or new results. I have 32 sites in a file at my fingertips that are reporting any and all new findings. Pro and con. It changed my mind. I use to believe in God too. What converted me to skepticism in both was the complexity I saw and the simplicity by which the "believers" answered. Both religion and global warming have black and white absolutist arguments. All or nothing. No middle ground where the truth and its consequences may lie.

The Pew Center takes a respectable position by taking all of the global warming positions seriously. All the while Investigating their arguments. It's mission as a think tank is to create careful policy initiatives for all possiblities.

(Bouncing back from the little ice age---) One of the viewpoints that has emerged (mine, by the way) from some scientific quarters is "global warming? bring it on, baby!" So it goes like this with this newer contrarian view. "Prove it, THEN prove it's bad". These people are studying the cyclic complexities and think getting warmer, like it has been 3 times so far in the Holocene, sounds like a jimdandy of an idea for humanity. These periods were more prosperous and productive. And then it will get colder again.

If you read the "explanation" concerning the petition you will see no "great satans" behind this document.

Well, we can also drop it too.

--WebTV-Mail-1920342306-2842
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.97) by
	postoffice-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:09:20
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <owner-virus@lucifer.com>
Received: from maxwell.kumo.com (maxwell.kumo.com [198.161.199.205]) by
	mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id NAA22209; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	NAA05317 for virus-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:47:05 -0600
From: "psypher" <overload@fastmail.ca>
Subject: Re: virus: cooler headsExplanation - Anti Global Warming Petition

Project
To: virus@lucifer.com
Message-Id: <199904221546a5566>
X-Fastmail-IP: 209.103.32.59
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com

...while acknowledging that this is not the proper forum for discussion environmental issues, it is [I think} the proper forum for discussing the construction of authority and the weight that social structures give to the perceived voice of authority in that structure. ...I didn't go to all the websites you posted james - I didn't have time and I'm capable of doing the research on my own and making up my own mind. I did notice though that one was sponsored by nasa and at least one other was sponsored by corporate interests. Neither the United States government or corporate business institutions in general have a particularly good record for acknowledging unpleasant realities which might interfere with their pursuit of profit and/or control.

...it should also be considered that the tobacco industry for many years presented all kinds of data - collected, analysed and interpreted *by scientists* which purported to demonstrate that smoking is not, in fact, harmful to humyn health. Something that can be determined empirically by associating for any length of time with smokers.

...just because 'scientists' propose something is no reason to accept it at face value. Why are they presenting their findings that way? Who sponsored the research? Who is sponsoring the forum in which the research is presented? Who stands to gain by the presentation of those findings in that way? To what extend are conflicting findings presented? Is the entire field of opposition disregarded or is it taken into account with the aim of reaching a synthesis of knowledge? Are conclusions presented as fact or hypothesis?

...these are all questions that must be taken into account. Just bvecause a lot of people with letters after their name and tenure think something is a good idea or a foregone conclusion is no reason to accept it as such.

-psypher

>
> --WebTV-Mail-1300025381-1436
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> 19,200 scientists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1300025381-1436
> X-URL-Title: Explanation - Anti Global Warming Petition Project
> Content-Disposition: Inline
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
>
> --WebTV-Mail-1300025381-1436--



http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians

--WebTV-Mail-1920342306-2842--