CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival
ejh at idcomm.com
Wed Jun 25 09:34:11 EST 1997
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:04:07 -0500, John Alway
<jalway at icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:
> That's not surprising, as most followers of a movement
> aren't like a movement's leaders. Many of them are simply
> being duped by the relentless propoganda. Notice how often
> it is stated (by media types, etc.) that global warming is a
> fact, as if it has been established. It hasn't been at
> all, and, in fact, data shows a statistically signficant
> (though slight) downward trend in temperatures over the last
> 18 years or so.
Where did you get these facts?
As someone with a good bit of familiarity with earth science I think
it's pretty clear that there is mostly a goodconcensus on the
so-called greenhouse effect, although as always there's a lot of
controversy about whether we can see the effects yet and of course
exactly what will happen.
But the problem is there and won't go away by pretending it's not.
> This is how virtually all environmental propoganda is
> spread, i.e. unquestioningly.
Really? That has not been my experience. Of course, working with
hundreds of earth scientists over the last 10 years has been an
unusual experience. Scientists never accept any science
> I mean, how often do you see some program on the tube where
> an environmentalists is presented as some sort of an idealist
> (gag), and that he's fighting terrible problem X. Here you are
> looking at the idiots in the media, talking to some environmental
> zealot, and they both accept unquestioningly the truth of a
> highly dubious premise. And then you see a bevy of high
> school students effusively speaking on environmental concerns,
> and admonishing those who haven't seen the light!?!? The god
> damned public schools are teaching this junk and they aren't
> teaching people how to think!!! (Do any of you who went through
> this propoganda stop to ask yourselves, is this true what I'm
> being taught? Anyone?)
Sure, I always ask that. Usually the answer is "nope!"
But I haven't noticed much of that with respect to the environment. Of
cousre I've been out of schoiol for quite a while.
> It's like walking into a religious argument concerning the
> number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin. Such an
> argument can go on forever, but there is one big question. What
> the _hell_ is an angel! and what is your evidence for their
Can we talk about science instead? We know what the atmosphere is, and
something about the radiation budget of the planet. We know the effect
that the so-called greenhouse gases should have, and we can messure
some of that right now.
What part of this is not clear to you?
> Humans who don't use reason are ripe to fall prey to just such
> thinking _all_the_time_, and so long as they don't use reason, they
> will continue to go for junk science, ufos, environmentalism, alleged
> religious signs written in cookies, etc. They are simply not
> intellectually armed to deal with bad ideas. The penalty for such
> thinking isn't minor. If we end up with too many people like this,
> we'll see society go down the tubes but fast, and deaths will occur on
> a massive scale, as it takes great brain power and reason to keep
> a modern society afloat (think about it). _This_, I submit, is the
> real pestilence upon this world, and the only reason environmentalism
> has any recognition.
Well reason then!
All I see are your assertions that environmentalists are wrong about
global warming. Where is your data? Where are your studies? Where are
your references to journal articles?
In short, where is your reasoning?
More information about the Ag-forst