[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:24:15 +0000 (GMT)

Philip M
From philip madsen Sun May 27 01:12:05 2007
but on an aside, I am still waiting upon Paul D to comment on the ethics 
exposed as political action by groups allegedly Science backed, against the 
broadcasting of the film The Great Global Warming Swindle.. to the point of 
having it banned like something worse than porn. Has to be worse, there's is 
plenty of the latter on the air. Obviously the science cannot be flawed. But 
even if it could, shouldn't the debate be allowed in public.?? 
And Paul. whats your reaction about the outcry against the new 'disney land", 
oops, I mean Creation museum? Really, Oh really, what are they frightened of..?
I debated commenting on these issues and decided (since I was tired and it was 
late) to pass. However, since you solicit my input, I'll comment despite it 
being late and I'm tired. See how I care? |[:-)
Personally I take the view that these debates should generally not be stifled. 
It just gives the proponents ammunition. There are plenty of qualified people 
who will competantly refute any bad science and from what little I've seen so 
far -- I haven't actually looked mind you -- I think it has many of the marks 
of sensationalism and general shonkiness one comes to associate with items like 
this. I will watch it when it airs however.
Sadly I can't give references, but I recently heard the comment that ice cores 
have shown a steady increase in CO2 from the beginning of the industrial 
revolution to the present, while known major volcanic events did not so 
Creation Museum? Well some people will be thrilled I'm sure but I am not among 
them. But again, in the interest of free expression (except shouting "Fire!" in 
a crowded theatre) attempting to silence dissenters serves only to provide the 
aforsaid ammunition. Just so long as it doesn't surface in a school science 
At the end of the day, when there are two opinions about a physical phenomenon 
which differ radically, only one may be correct. Later, people will remember 
the accurate predictions based on an understanding of the phenomenon, while 
those predictions which are proven incorrect (or were not made) will be filed 
with Looney Tunes. Some time ago, I found the attached cartoon at the 
angryflower.com site. Most of his cartoons leave me flat but this one I thought 
made a valid point.
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.

Attachment: attemp.gif
Description: GIF image

Other related posts: