[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 07:45:53 +1000
Ja speaks true, except I would add; when men allow themselves to be governed by
Selfishness, fear, greed, control, etc..., they place themselves outside of
science, having no claim to title, in the same way as do men put themselves
outside of Christ and have no claim to title in religion.
And I added emphasis to the best of what Ja says below.
"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?"
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.3/824 - Release Date: 29/05/2007
1:01 PM
Other related posts:
