[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:55:45 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
I should have realised that I couldn't get away with a short answer to your
question! |[:-)
There are always people wandering through life looking for something --
anything -- to attack.
The reigning world scientific view is that global warming is a fact. It has
taken many years for this position to be reached and among the participants
there is a small minority which does not agree. There are in the world, cynical
opportunists with the desire and resources to exploit this minority view,
knowing full well that there is a section of the population always willing,
even eager to jump on a bandwagon. This includes those people who seem to have
a built in need to disagree with anything which commands a majority view.
These opportunists however, are generally unsuccessful in persuading
organizations such as CNN, BBC, ABC to take them seriously so they turn to
others such as Fox, Channel 4 (UK), and Ch 10 (Australia). As I've remarked
before, there are warning signs which indicate what is likely to be simple
sensationalism and what is likely to have substance. First is the distinct
whiff, if not the outright stink of accusations of conspiracy. Next is the
identity bringing this revelation to your living room (see above). If you delve
a little deeper, you start to find things like a significant percentage of
antagonists whose views on other subjects also lack qualified popular support.
And, as shown in this case, there is commonly the complaint of some of the
participants that their contributions have been 'edited'.
These are general comments -- I am familiar with just one of the names on your
list (are these the contributors?) Philip Stott (the Biogeographer) and some of
his out-of-step views -- but the signs are there to be read. As I said I will
watch it when it airs (in fact I look forward to it) but I'm not going to waste
my download quota on the video. I think I can rely on you to inform me whether
in fact the video, when aired, was substantially truncated or honestly
reported. I feel confident that you will be watching with that intent
regardless of my existance.
Now, have I prejudged the debate? I am influenced by all inputs including the
items mentioned above, the general comments in the press and on the web, your
advocacy and my general curiosity. I admit that, at this point in time, I am
not expecting to have my view changed. But my indication that I will watch
should tell you that I wish to know just what it has to say.
Finally, did you see the Horizon production "An experiment to save the world"?
It dealt with an attempt to duplicate an experiment claimed to have been
successful by the experimenter, in demonstrating cold fusion? That is what I
think of as even handed, genuine, careful investigation. If The Great Global
Warming Swindle had been under the aegis of Horizon -- it would have had a
different name of course -- that alone would have induced to me to watch it,
but of course, and for the reasons I've given above, it wasn't!
Paul D
_________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
Other related posts:
