[lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:55:29 -0400
The WSJ editorial page is ultra conservative. Let's see, the air is
unbreathable in many parts of the world, pollution concentrations are
visible on satellite imaging, glaciers are melting. Conclusion: it's a
natural cycle. Even if it is naturally occurring, wouldn't it be nice to
have cleaner air to breathe and oceans that weren't polluted? The old
selfish gene in action, get a good meal and to hell with everything and
everybody else. Denying global warming supports the theory of evolution,
since evolution is concerned only with the individual. It doesn't care
about the group. Neither does the WSJ editorial page. Substantitvely,
though, it's the other way around. Scientists are discouraged from
discussing it. Action needs to be taken now, this decade, and it's not
being taken now.
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/12/2006 1:10:37 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] global luke-warming
>
> From the wall street journal
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
>
> Climate of Fear
> Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
>
> BY RICHARD LINDZEN
> Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
>
> p
>
> ##########
> Paul Stone
> pas@xxxxxxxx
> Kingsville, ON, Canada
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
