You act as though perfection of character and purpose were behind the movement of the sciences. Science for the sake of true understanding and true knowledge. Actually, it is driven by the same characteristics that drive religions and politics and every other faucet of human endever. Selfishness, fear, greed, control, etc... You seem able to grasp the "conspiracy theory" if it's in the minority, why can't you grasp that it may be in the majority? How about the opportunists with the desire and resources to exploit the majority? As long as you follow "the crowd" may find yourself to be a lemming. . Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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. --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.